Strictly speaking, no I don't think AIDS is a classical STD. the prostitute paradox generally disproves that.
I know the Perth Group posits that a positive antibody test can be sexually acquired but not sexually transmitted; and a positive antibody test, while not indicating transmission of a virus, is associated with receptive anal intercourse and the development of AIDS. However, they point out that it's the frequency of exposure to semen that's what counts here, which is at odds with STD's being acquired with a single exposure AND being bi-directionally transmitted. So, to me this is a nebulous question when you look at all the factors that can cause a positive reaction on these crappy tests. AND the fact that prostitues who aren't drug users don't regularly develop a positive antibody test or AIDS.
I think AIDS isn't so much an STD as it is a marker for biological stressors from drugs, poppers, antiretrovirals, etc.
I've also thought a lot about the Perth Group's 'toxic semen' hypothesis. I think it's only relevant in the context of other significant oxidative stressors. But the hypothesis is bound up in the idea that AIDS is sexually associated, which is kind of tangential to whether it's an STD.
So ultimately I think AIDS is sexually associated more than it is an STD. It's also sexually associate because if you're sexually active as a gay man then you're pushed to frequently test, so there's a kind of selection bias at work here. A lot of guys who probably never did drugs, but had a lot of sex may have developed antibodies that reacted on the tests, but had they never known of that positive reaction would have lived a normal life, but who then were expected to go on toxic drugs AND took on the medical system's insistence that they were going to die early. Talk about modern day voodoo.
The Perth Group "AIDS – SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED OR SEXUALLY ACQUIRED?" was the last manuscript the late Eleni Papadopulos submitted for publication [1]. In it she did not question the authenticity of HIV, HIV "isolation", or the antibody and “viral load” tests (PCR). Her premise was that STIs and STDs are bi-directionally spread. This means epidemiologists cannot prove HIV or AIDS an STD without distinguishing between insertive and receptive sexual partners. With heterosexuals this is unambiguously defined by gender. Since homosexual men may practise either or both insertive and/or receptive intercourse, making this distinction is problematic.
As a thought experiment, one can choose to ignore the latter and focus on heterosexual evidence. In fact, one can go even further. One can temporarily accept there is proof for male-to-female transmission and ask, "What is the evidence that sex between HIV positive females and HIV negative males causes the latter to seroconvert"? From the most oft cited prospective studies she concluded there was no such evidence. She then asked, if HIV were an unconventional STI/STD, that is, can be unilaterally sexually transmitted male-to-female, (invoking pregnancy as a metaphor), how do the heterosexual males get infected? (In order that they can infect the females).
In the manuscript she reasoned, "In terms of a retroviral infection this can only signify the male partner first acquiring HIV by non-sexual means following which he transmits it to the passive [female] partner. However, unless one accepts that millions of heterosexual males (including Africans) are haemophiliacs, transfusion recipients or drug addicts, this is a highly unlikely explanation. [I venture it exceeds the distance to Alpha Centauri]. Hence, one is obliged to search for evidence for an alternative interpretation in the passive [female] partners...That is, factors other than a retroviral infection that can explain acquired immune deficiency (low T4 cell count) and antibody reactions with test kit antigens". The latter means a positive antibody test [1].
Bear in mind the only proof for sexual transmission is epidemiological studies. Unpacking these, there are no RCT type studies. RCTs are inconceivable because they are ethically forbidden. One would need to recruit a group of people and randomly assign half to become the sexual partners of people with HIV infection, and then compare the proportion that develop HIV infection in this group to the corresponding proportion in the other half that did not have sexual partners with HIV infection. That leaves observational studies which are not randomised. The vast majority of these are cross-sectional which, by definition, have no time element. Thus they cannot prove transmission. In its Basic Epidemiology book, even the WHO concedes cross-sectional studies “weak” in the hierarchy of different types of study to "prove" causation” [2]. “Weak” does not justify pitching Grim Reapers at 30 billion heterosexuals [3]. There are a few prospective studies and even fewer regularly held up as proof.
Professor Stuart Brody, who has published numerous papers on sex and HIV, unpacked the epidemiologists' strategy. “The primary basis for considering heterosexual intercourse to be a significant source of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections is the logical exclusion process: patients acknowledge heterosexual intercourse, but deny homosexual and recreational intravenous activity (and contaminated transfusions)”. Furthermore, “At first, such a deductive process seems quite sound. But as one begins to consider the garbled nature of the sexual practice categories and the invalid reports of both fairly normal and psychopathological patient groups, the reasoning underlying this exclusion process disintegrates”. Brody concludes, “the basic issue of whether the patient or subject is responding honestly about their sexual and drug history is often given minimal attention. When it is addressed, it is noted as a source of error variance, but the transmission assumptions remain fixed”.
A propos, in regard to the scant numbers of men infected by women, it is hard to beat the New York City Department of Health (NYCDOH), “AIDS Surveillance Update” data, 25th January 1989: “In New York City, the heterosexual AIDS capital of the United States, out of 18,000 cases diagnosed by early 1989, only 7 males have been identified as having gotten AIDS from heterosexual intercourse” [3].
If there is no retroviral explanation for HIV positive tests in female heterosexuals, how can one invoke a retroviral infection in anyone who tests HIV positive? In other words, the heterosexual data, even the female-to-male data alone, are sufficient reason to re-examine the HIV theory of AIDS.
2. Bonita, Ruth, Beaglehole, Robert, Kjellström, Tord & World Health Organization. (2006). Basic epidemiology, 2nd ed. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/435413.
3. In 1987 Australia, heterosexual sex=death begat the three million dollar Grim Reaper campaign. This slick TV commercial was based on the belief that AIDS could "kill more Australians than World War II". For just over a minute young and old alike were treated to a nefarious, hooded, scythe-bearing animated corpse in black garb, launching a gigantic, two metre bowling ball at ten mums, dads, a footballer, terrified kids and a woman holding a baby. As the ball struck, nine fell to their deaths. The woman and baby required a second ball. The finale, redolent of the solitary, monumental cymbal clash in Bruckner’s Seventh Symphony, had the baby’s head snapping off. Eleven lifeless bodies, laying in a disjointed heap of smoke laden, end-of-times rubble, were then scraped away to make way for the next lot of victims. 72,814 Australian service men and women died in World War II. As of Dec 31st 2020, a cumulative total of 7962 Australians had died from AIDS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSmaWEK_rD4
4. Michael Fumento. 1990. The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS. New York: Basic Books. page 17.
5. In the 1980s and 1990s Papadopulos managed to get some papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. After that the orthodoxy grew tired of, and increasingly hostile to, dissidents. They did everything possible to prevent even a hint of heterodoxy reaching the populace. For instance, see [6] and Professor John Moore. In 2007 Moore emailed an AIDS dissident, "This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly (at least the more influential ones; foot-soldiers like you aren't worth bothering with)” (his emphasis).
In 1993 Papadopulos argued that the HIV antibody tests have not been proven fit for purpose [7]. That is, to diagnose HIV infection. This paper was comprehensively ignored and her claim stands. Pragmatically Papadopulos then began focusing on other elements of the HIV theory, assuming, for the sake of argument, that HIV, HIV “isolation” and viral load are bona fide. By pointing out several “downstream” problems, she hoped scientists would eventually transplant their attention to the root cause of the HIV theory. That is, to HIV itself, and the tests claimed to prove infection with it. Note that she did have one last attempt at the root but no editor would touch it [8]. Such is the realpolitik of life as a scientist. Julius Robert Oppenheimer was surely reminiscing an antediluvian Eden in his 1953, “House of Science” BBC Reith Lecture: “We go in and out; even the most assiduous of us is not bound to this vast structure. One thing we find throughout the house: there are no locks; there are no shut doors; wherever we go there are the signs and usually the words of welcome. It is an open house, open to all comers [9].
I hope that you are well, and I hope that you will take the time to respond to this message. In your comment above, you wrote that, in the manuscript titled "AIDS – SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED OR SEXUALLY ACQUIRED?", the late Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos "did not question the authenticity of HIV, HIV 'isolation', or the antibody and 'viral load' tests (PCR)..." Unfortunately, you did not supply a direct link to the document, but your reference states:
Can you please tell me is THIS the document to which you were referring when you wrote that Eleni "did not question the authenticity of HIV, HIV 'isolation', or the antibody and 'viral load' tests (PCR)..."...??? If yes, then in THAT document that is posted at the link above, one can CLEARLY read analyses of these very topics which in your message above, you claim that Eleni excluded from the manuscript. Can you please tell me if you are referring to THIS specific version of the manuscript that is currently posted on the Perth Group's web site and is at the direct link I've supplied above? Or are you referring to an EARLIER version of the manuscript that is NOT publicly available?
If you ARE referring to the current version that appears at the link above, then why did you make those claims about the document, i.e., claims that appear to be demonstrably false...??
Thank you for pointing out this error. The cited sexual transmission manuscript does discuss antibody tests. I had forgotten the manuscript was originally two manuscripts. (Both of which were eventually rejected. See first page, your second link). The first MS finished with: "Hence, one is obliged to search for evidence for an alternative interpretation in the passive partners (male and female). That is, factors other than a retroviral infection that can explain acquired immune deficiency (low T4 cell count) and antibody reactions with test kit antigens". The next sentence segues into material of the second manuscript. "There are at least two possibilities, either or both of which may be operative".
My mistake does not alter the fact that the validity of the HIV tests are not questioned to argue the unidirectional heterosexual transmission of AIDS.
FYI, Eleni Papadopulos realised that questioning the isolation of HIV had become a bridge too far. But, if she was correct - that the phenomena claimed as HIV isolation could be due to non-viral causes - then, sooner or later, it would be revealed "downstream". That is, in studies premised on the antibody tests being highly sensitive and specific for HIV infection. Acting on this premise she wrote the original, first MS of "AIDS-sexually transmitted or sexually acquired?"
For those interested in our published, peer-reviewed papers on the HIV antibody tests, please see 1-3 below. Item 4 was submitted as a letter to the NEJM but rejected. The video is based on this manuscript.
1. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E., V. F. Turner, et al. (1993). "Is a positive
Western blot proof of HIV infection?" Bio/Technology 11: 696-707.
It might be time for you to start 'diggin in' to "all that detail", as that's where the truth lies. In a nutshell, what Dr. Turner said is that there's no proof of 'HIV transmission' in heterosexuals, and therefore there's no proof of transmission in gay men or anyone else. Any time there's a reaction on an 'HIV' antibody or genetic test, it's ALWAYS an assumption those reactions came from a body reacting to the presence of a new externally acquired infection by a retrovirus it's never encountered before. And there's the rub, it's ALWAYS an assumption that this is the case. There are a substantial number of things that cause reactions on these tests, they're a grab-bag of reactivity.
I was spurred to ask the question reading this paragraph...
"Bear in mind the only proof for sexual transmission is epidemiological studies. Unpacking these, there are no RCT type studies. RCTs are inconceivable because they are ethically forbidden. One would need to recruit a group of people and randomly assign half to become the sexual partners of people with HIV infection, and then compare the proportion that develop HIV infection in this group to the corresponding proportion in the other half that did not have sexual partners with HIV infection."
I suppose you answered in the sentence preceding this paragraph....
"....factors other than a retroviral infection that can explain acquired immune deficiency (low T4 cell count) and antibody reactions with test kit antigens". The latter means a positive antibody test [1]."
So essentially you mean 'development of HIV' is according to test results deemed positive and pertinent, not an exhibiting of any symptoms of illness. Is that correct?
And then are you also in agreement with Christopher T in his comment to my question ? He speaks of the "grab-bag of reactivity" that characterises these tests...the 'substantial number of things that cause reactions on these tests'.
I agree with what Christopher says but I am not sure you do... to speak of 'development of HIV' cant have any basis of truth if the tests dont indicate anything specific
Dr Turner we have millions of people who are HIV positive and mostly they attribute their infection from sexual transmission, how is it that happens when partner is positive then the other test positive in a long run, whether such was known and hidden to the partner or one partner cheats unknowingly that they cheat with "HIV positive" person and come home to infect their partner,
In other instance one partner got infected through contact with infected bodily fluids then also infect the partner through sex
Hi X man. Let me repeat the first sentence of my previous response to your comment......."It is a long and arduous process to cast off the weaving contorted thread of 'HIV' wrapped around one's mind I witness in your comment."
From what I recall you said of your personal circumstance in a comment on another post by Rebecca, is that you are effectively ensnared in a situation whereby there has been a 'HIV+' test result of someone close to you, thus the expectation is that YOU have to test. So you are stuck with trying to work out for yourself what the concepts of 'HIV/AIDs mean to you, whilst under pressure (from specific partner, to general a.n.others, to the prevailing societal viewpoint) to conform and 'be responsible' and go get tested.
This is a horrible situation to be placed in. But has to be faced, and thrashed out with your partner. Of course the line of least resistance (in the immediate term) would be to seek to justify that HIV is a real thing, a fact of life....and this is what i glean is the thrust of your (mainly unconscious?) attitude i surmise from the angle and tone of your comments. You on the one hand want to avoid a 'HIV diagnosis' (and for sure you dont want that infliction of 'forever taint' effect....however ridiculous in truth it might be), yet how can you proceed with your partner, you remaining as partners, without you agreeing to offer yourself for the tests? 'The devil you do, the devil you dont'...
(even if you are 'HIV-ve' then you will have your wranglings over how did my partner 'become HIV+' ?)
It is all a minefield...by design i would say.
Personally, my advice is for you and your partner to grab the bull by the horns, be very open and honest with each other (and that maybe isnt so common customarily between spouses on the African continent eh) and research widely, make it your mission, and i think you will indeed come to conclude, ( like I, and thousands of others who have put time and energy to understand better) that her 'HIV' diagnosis is meaningless, (or you decide in tandem it is meaningless enough, we cant know eh) thus there is no sense for you to go for any tests which might label you HIV+.
Manouevre yourselves away from this nefarious entrapment and be freer...
I mean do you feel the wind? Have you seen the wind, touch it contain it? But you believe the strong wind can have devastating effect infact you see the devastating effects of the wind, but with virus you want people to show you the "virus" whilst you have seen it's effect, please don't take this personally when I say you I just mean the "no virus" people, my friend caught Covid 2 times and his experience says it's different from ordinary flue and ever since he has been prone to flue, the virus world is very complex unfortunately the scientist's never want to openly discuss the issue because there's money to make for all camps, whether virus pusher (pills) or denial (cures, books etc) I guess we will never get to the bottom of it🙄
What I don't get is the meaningless part, my research on this subject left me with more questions than answers, it's hard to say the test is meaningless when the outcome thereof are so crucial either to llforever destroy you or continue with normal life,
I've come across with partners who have mixed status for years like 31 years they are now in their late 50s, I read someone story had one encounter of sex then became positive for both HSV and HIV on X(Twitter), I khow of a man who tested positive and 10 years later test negative without taking ARVs on different location but the system still regard him as positive, I know of lady who was positive for years on treatment and her Dr just called her out of the blue to re run the test because the depression pills she was on gives false positive, so this is a complex situation I thought it is straight forward, I also see very sick people coming back to "life" after taking treatment, so many theories as to the change of status, undetectable viral load, cured by clean diet and God's hand in some cases, just the other day I read of a lady who says she is positive for 9 years without ARVs and recently went for viral load tests and she is undetectable. So yes what I can't wrap my head around is the no existence of the virus, I think the impact is so huge to ignore
Is it not the case of there being a point reached whereby questions that remain unanswered amass to an over-riding serious doubt? The whole edifice of HIV/AIDS (and Covid etc) has been spawned by global-wide 'trust' (primary), then 'belief' (secondary) that the antibody and PCR tests are meaningful diagnostic tools.
This morning I dipped into my copy of Rebecca's 2023 ed book. She so rigorously analyses, highlighting the myriad examples of logic-shortfall in the chapter "Problems with the HIV tests".
Prior to reading this delve(complicated for my foggy analytical mind!)) , I read her summary at the end of the book of the "Failed Predictions of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis". (and she reminds us... there were a volley of grave predictions, [cunningly laced with hope of cure], right from the time of the 'Grim Reaper of HIV/AIDS' pronouncement in the media... catching the world off guard).
Looking at what we have been told to believe in light of what hasnt transpired, and what doesn't add up, there is strong case for judging the root of meaninglessness in the hypothesis.
This meaningless can only be taken on board if one doesnt conflate/mix in the meaning taken on board by an individual been told they are HIV+ , whereby the mind/emotion/body absorbs the 'demon' diagnosis, and an internal 'coping' response dynamic is activated. What I am saying is that if you trust and believe in the tests then if you are deemed positive that is the infection you allow in. And thus come the effects the individual experiences/ conjures up as utterly meaningful and even life-consuming...their 'reality'...
But, a syndrome unleashed solely resulting from trust and belief in the tests!
I only came to properly question the HIV tests because of the spotlight (seen if one was curious to be acting on one's suspicion 'covid' was a doubtful entity) put on PCR etc tests in early 2020. And, as i said in an earlier comment, it requires a broad delve over time into info (a task massively assisted by the internet) for doubt to harden.
All the people you know, or have heard of, with their varied experiences within the HIV/AIDS Paradigm/construct, of course magnify the reality of humanity. We each are unique energetic beings, so we each have our unique state of health/illness and we each have our own disposition to best dance with/cope with the lies bouncing about in the world.
Jon Rappoport wrote an article which remains with me in how he keeps cognisant the fact that there isnt any illness that fits all, can be subscribed to any beyond a single person (something like that...my takeaway) Let me try find that article link....as Jon is great banging on about LOGIC and IMAGINATION. Is not logic analysing to the fullest (as Rebecca aims for) the so-called facts presented....and finding how they aren't joined up. Is not Imagination going beyond (stimulated within the holes of the lying narrative) what one is told to listen to...but draw on one's however many senses, and soul memory, to find own path and decide what is our personal reality, not that which others try and foist upon us?
The huge impact of 'viruses' I agree cannot be ignored. (even if they only amount to ideas we buy into) The impact is dreadful, and it does pain me to know the quiet or explicit suffering going on because of the HIV concept....because i have had that simmering aetiology too
We feel the wind, we see trees and other objects being impacted by the wind, people's hair blowing in the wind....but we dont see viruses, we imagine them. And we believe the guff we are told! (guff is schoolboy term for wind (flatulence) if you weren't aware).
Hi X man. It is a long and arduous process to cast off the weaving contorted thread of 'HIV' wrapped around one's mind I witness in your comment.
Let me share a bit of how it was for me..........
On my HIV diagnosis I pondered my sexual history (far from promiscuous) and wondered HOW?
I had given oral sex to a friend who was decimated mentally by her HIV diagnosis (and has subsequently died of what i would deem psychosomatically induced physical symptoms). In the mix was to show some love to her, to allay her sense of being forever tarnished. Did I 'catch HIV' from her?
I developed a longterm relationship with a widowed woman, her deceased husband a friend of mine. Was she with HIV passed to me?, and that my friend had been unfaithful, 'caught HIV' (and finally ended up dying of AIDS?...not sleeping sickness/quinine overdose it appeared to be to me?) from his dalliance partner, and passed on to her??...unbeknown to her with good health (but who was tested, and 'positive HIV' after my diagnosis, so was herself 'trapped' by the diagnosis and developed cancer and subsequently died)...
Did i 'catch HIV' ?? from a woman i met in a bar who i hung out with for the eve, and i decided to (uncharacteristically for me) have this kind of casual sex with upstairs on the flat roof... and then felt mortified when she asked me for money 'for her services'....aagh.
Otherwise i had had blood transfusions when ill in the 1980's... had that blood 'contained HIV'?
OR... what if my history of illness of ulcerative colitis, malaria, and who knows what else that impacted my immune system in my life (including the childhood vax, and the recommended ones i took going to Kenya in the 1980's) provided the 'markers' for me to be deemed HIV positive by the various 'HIV tests' ( taken without my consent when ill and on antibiotics for a very infected leg in a hospital in Kenya) ????.
All in all it has been set up as a horrid marauding mind-f...'ing blight on our sense of health and well-being. To extricate one's mind from fear and imaginings induced by the mind virus of HIV is very hard going. It goes so deep eh X man ....and you could quite well be reading my story as confirmation that HIV does exist, and that it causes AIDS...... as 3 people in my life here died...but all deemed to have aetiology of HIV labelling from spurious testing process!
reposting the above as in doing edit not all of comment is showing on re-post....
Hi X man. It is a long and arduous process to cast off the weaving contorted thread of 'HIV' wrapped around one's mind I witness in your comment.
Let me share a bit of how it was for me..........
On my HIV diagnosis I pondered my sexual history (far from promiscuous) and wondered HOW?
I had given oral sex to a friend who was decimated mentally by her HIV diagnosis (and has subsequently died of what i would deem psychosomatically induced physical symptoms). In the mix was to show some love to her, to allay her sense of being forever tarnished. Did I 'catch HIV' from her?
I developed a longterm relationship with a widowed woman, her deceased husband a friend of mine. Was she with HIV passed to me?, and that my friend had been unfaithful, 'caught HIV' (and finally ended up dying of AIDS?...not sleeping sickness/quinine overdose it appeared to be to me?) from his dalliance partner, and passed on to her??...unbeknown to her with good health (but who was tested, and 'positive HIV' after my diagnosis, so was herself 'trapped' by the diagnosis and developed cancer and subsequently died)...
Did i 'catch HIV' ?? from a woman i met in a bar who i hung out with for the eve, and i decided to (uncharacteristically for me) have this kind of casual sex with upstairs on the flat roof... and then felt mortified when she asked me for money 'for her services'....aagh.
Otherwise i had had blood transfusions when ill in the 1980's... had that blood 'contained HIV'?
OR... what if my history of illness of ulcerative colitis, malaria, and who knows what else that impacted my immune system in my life (including the childhood vax, and the recommended ones i took going to Kenya in the 1980's) provided the 'markers' for me to be deemed HIV positive by the various 'HIV tests' ( taken without my consent when ill and on antibiotics for a very infected leg in a hospital in Kenya) ????.
All in all it has been set up as a horrid marauding mind-f...'ing blight on our sense of health and well-being. To extricate one's mind from fear and imaginings induced by the mind virus of HIV is very hard going. It goes so deep eh X man ....and you could quite well be reading my story as confirmation that HIV does exist, and that it causes AIDS...... as 3 people in my life here died...but all deemed to have aetiology of HIV labelling from spurious testing process!
As for other reasons, like vaccines, ulcerative colitis, blood transfusion, I don't know my brother but the argument might be not everyone who have a sever UC test, positive, so many people have been vaccinated against Covid and other conditions but still test negative for HIV, blood transfusion in the 80s possibilities are there
You had unprotected sex and oral sex with "HIV positive people widow of your friend " you also had sex with prostitute (unprotected) and you say 3 people died of AIDS all of whom were HIV positive, so what makes you not to believe HIV exist and leads to AIDS?
Hi X Man....I wrote this yesterday before had to get on with other stuff...i am sending now, and will respond to your other comments later when with more time....
And I will comment on the importance of having our kind of 'alive' conversation as we are examples of how our lives are impacted by the material or imaginery existence of the presented HIV conceptual framework. In the overall perspective for humanity getting to grips with what HIV is/isnt we have to engage with it in an alive way...that involves all the randomness of our feelings, thoughts, intuition, and faith. Intellectual analysis alone cant rid this thing from our consciousness... Rebecca does sterling work, playing a role in stimulating an awareness of how things dont add up, but at the end of the day it is our own individual process which will cause us to run with what we deem is truth
I guessed you would have difficulty to not conclude my experience supports the whole HIV/AIDS hypothesis racket.
For me, it is a question of firstly holding off judgement on what HIV is, what AIDS is, how any 'thing' could be transmitted...it is more like deciding what they aren't, and being open to other forms of 'communication/transmission' possibility, of non-material form, (as all is energy, light, sound) like photons between people?....and the offering oneself to the process of exploring views and information in the overall context of worldly matters going on over centuries (as in connecting dots... like someone like David Icke has been doing for decades).
However I try and explain myself , and ramble on within the restriction of language, I dont think you will get it....as you seem still ingrained in believing the narrative...as it is so so persuasive when millions of people are re-inforcing its energetic imprint on the Earth. It just exists as a bald truth eh. That's how it felt for me too.
But if you keep exploring I think you will see it differently eventually, and be able to take a stance, rather than forever being not sure enough, and sitting on the fence....thus strongly within the thrall of HIV/AIDS manipulation modality.
I can only tell of my experience and the stance that feels right for me....I am still caught up in it...and will be for the rest of my life, as that HIV diagnosis has a life of its own (a demon that I can ever expunge?) ...with any whiff of sexual contact with a woman i have to mention this 'status'...it feels like a moral responsibility however far from any truth of the matter.
I can never be 100% sure that I am not a threat to someone through being labelled HIV, as i dont know what it is, if not anything. For a woman (my lack currently) engaging with me sexually i take as my benchmark there being worry for them at some level...even if having protected sex. (condom was used with that 'prostitute'by the way...i didnt know her contraceptive status so i couldnt risk pregnancy...and that isolated unusual event was 20 years prior to my 'HIV diagnosis') It is that kill of intimacy which is the devils greatest win. And it can harvest all the angst of HIV/AIDS generated over the globe (and now with all covid mindset harm, and more actual physical suffering to add)
AIDS is a scam and nonsense. Even the name is a scam. "Aquired" - from what, exactly - they don't know. Immune deficiency - exactly in what way? Syndrome - anytime you hear the word "syndrome" from the establishment, you know they don't have a clue about the source, etc. There's *still* no clear clinical definition of AIDS - they had to resort to "indicator diseases/symptoms" to pull under the magic funding umbrella of AIDS. And they've spent 34B on "research" without even creating a clinical definition or cause (supposedly a green monkey virus). What virus, exactly? There are no scientific papers that show the clear isolation and identification of *any* "virus." Nothing. No viruses of any kind, whatsoever. No Spanish Flu virus, no polio virus, Hong Kong flu (1960s), swine flu, no AIDS (1980s), H1N1/5, no SARS, MERS, Mad Cow, Ebola, etc. All bullshit and marketing and money and funding. And if you dig down on genetic sequencing of "viruses" (supposedly 30,000 base pairs in length), you will find out that the technology is only capable of *actually* sequencing DNA fragments 8-12 or maybe 18 base pairs at best. All the rest is software estimating and marketing. The whole scam is MASSIVE and disgusts me. No, AIDS is not an STD. AIDS is just your body breaking down when you treat it like shit (like another respondent said). The MSM does not tell you about all the "AIDS" patients who cleaned up their lifestyles and lived normal lives.
I know for a fact that the form of AIDs that I and my husband have (not HIV) is definitely from an infectious disease/virus. I know exactly when I acquired this disease and from whom, and I then infected my husband. It was transmitted to me via a casual saliva exchange. The individual was an IV drug user, so I strongly suspect the virus is most likely what was found nearly 40 years ago by virologist Elaine Defrietas while investigating the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome outbreak at Lake Tahou. She had overwhelming evidence of an 'HTLV-2 like' virus, which makes all kinds of sense since HTLV-2 is a virus commonly found in IV drug users. The CDC conveniently could not (or would not) validate her findings. My guess is they wanted to hide this finding because they had just announced HIV as being the sole cause of AIDs. So, yes I absolutely believe that AIDs is an STD AND it can be transmitted very easily via saliva. I suspect that these cases have probably been on the decline since the HIV announcement due to extra precautions taken with IV drug users and dirtly needles, etc.
LR can you explain further why you view yourself as having a 'form of AIDS', so as to try and understand your thought process further. I assume you and your husband are not in good health, and (like myself for sure, when i got labelled HIV, and with periods of illness post and prior to ) you have scurried around trying to make sense of how and why you got ill/a diagnosis.
The fact is we all concoct our own story about it all, according to our personal experience and where we are with the knowledge/ignorance/ believing in lies, interface. Each to our own perspective, so we can get on with our lives. We do our best eh...
But I doubt we 'catch' anything on a material level, but rather all our 'illness' is internal process which is susceptible to impacts from the external environment (including communication with others...on a bio-photon level?)
I dont know what to think about STD's ...what they are really. Within homeopathy there is concept of miasms which are hereditary taints passed on by syphilis or gonorrhoea, which gives the new-born a pre-disposition... the syphilitic miasm is one of destruction, the gonorrhoea one is excess.
My thought process leads me onto just having read in 'AIDS Inc' of a gay guy in the 80's whose lifestyle was rife with excess and masochistic self-destruction, and he was labelled HIV, and with AIDS, and to die soon. He was a case in point of perhaps inheriting both miasms.
At the end of the day he chose to self-abuse, severely neglected himself, was well ungrounded...and illhealth was a must. Death was obvious (if i adopted that lifestyle today, well not the gay bit, but just the drugs ,I reckon i would be dead in a week). The medical establishment vultures swooped, threw AZT into the mix....it was a done deal (with the devil?, in myriad forms one could suppose)
In a conversation about the very broad topic of AIDS I dont think it is particularly useful to be having overfocus on such historical individuals. Unfortunately they (as for all of us in a way) got what was coming to them. History now.
The current paradigm is a fiction of HIV, but which is real imagined threat to those diagnosed and healthy (and now with the added maliciousness of pREP to those deemed at risk of 'catching' the myth) There are millions of people being misled all around the world, on all continents, in all kinds of personal circumstance and culture, and lifestyle.
AIDS has globally been around for ever...whenever a human being is ailing through neglect, hardship, trauma, stress, environmental poisonings, malnutrition, masochism, the body will 'cry out' in some way with symptoms. The worse the symptoms the more the Immune dysfunction/deficiency acquisition has to be sorted ... can we 'perish that thought'?
ps. to give him a shout out.....Aids Inc. is Jon Rappoport exposition on HIV/AIDs...(like he says re anything 'covid' etc....it is just an individual with their own particular set of symptoms according to their dis-ease due to their particular reasons for getting ill/out of balance...a dis-ease is uniquely personal, it cannot be categorized)
AIDS Inc, (and other good freebies giving his unique take on the human state), Jon is sharing to those who take out annual subscription on his Substack
Thank you for the inquiry. The form of AIDs that I and my husband have is deficient immunoglobulins and low NK cells. We also have borderline CD4 cells. We were both very healthy up until a specific event with an individual (saliva exchange) in 2013. This individual was a prior IV drug user. His wife had died of sepsis at age 50, 25 years earlier his infant died of an infection and he also stated that all the girlfriends he dated had passed away. There is no doubt in my mind that I acquired an infectious agent from this individual because soon after that incident, I started having many symptoms. My husband and I have identical symptoms AND immune systems. We have tested negative for HIV and HTLV as well as many other viruses. I also find it especially interesting that virologist Elaine Defreitas discovered an 'HTLV-2 like' virus nearly 40 years ago when investigating the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome outbreak at Lake Tahou. These individuals also had depleted B cells, NK cells, etc. I'm convinced that we have whatever these Lake Tahou individuals had nearly 40 years ago and I'm also thinking that it's some form of HTLV-2. I've done much reading and research over the past 10 years. The infectious disease doctors and the major hospitals like Mayo and Cleveland clinics are useless. They do not want to help us at all since we're testing negative for HIV. So, this is why I'm 150% sure that AIDs (or a form of it) is definitely due to an STD and it's very easily transmitted, i.e. via saliva. If I hadn't asked my doctor to send me to an immunologist, I would never have known that my immune system was deficient, and so I'm thinking there may be many more individuals with this infection (or may have been if they haven't passed away yet). I'm thinking that those with HIV and those with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome whom have a form of AIDs may actually have the same virus (not HIV) that is causing the AIDs. I'm still in disbelief of the whole situation. I'm also in disbelief that my husband and I have not been able to get any help or interest from the medical community. It is truly unbelievable.
Well, I'm sure that you have the symptoms you describe. And you seem to have spotted a key event after which you were sick. But your subsequent reasonings/statements have no basis in logic or factual science. To label "it" (your package of symptoms) AIDS when there is no clear clinical definition of AIDS seems like an irrational thing to do. And to say that you were "tested" for HIV, HTLV, or any other virus is understandable but nonetheless irrational when no one has ever isolated ANY virus whatsoever. So, how can they test for "something" when they have never isolated "something." Scientifically, any statement that involves the word virus is based on nothing more than propaganda. Instead, if the saliva event was indeed the source of your health problems, it would be much more rational to assert a poisoning of some kind from the saliva. And of course the MSM and infectious disease doctors are useless because they are bound to repeat the propaganda. BTW, it is not clear, scientifically (RCT trials, etc.), that infectious diseases exist. No one has ever been able to prove transmission and sickness for fake "viruses", the deadly fake Spanish Flu (Be Afraid!), measles, polio, or anything else. Look up Roseneau's Spanish Flu experiment in the Boston Public Health system circa 1918, for example. We (the people) will never get anywhere as long as we have PhD mathematicians and threads like this one arguing about fake HIV/AIDS scams and whether or not they are STDs (Be Afraid! Avoid Sex!). I watched my ex-girlfriend live most of her adult life thinking she was a leper (another scam) of some kind because the doctors "tested" her for a fake virus and told her she had it (oh, and had to take $$$ drugs for it for a couple of decades). The medical establishment and MSM disgust me. Sorry to say, but until someone proves scientifically that "viruses" exist, then any discussion about them or their supposed disease symptom is based on nothing more than imaginary thinking and propaganda.
Hi Kevin! Are you on Twitter, now "X"? I would take a look at another substack run by a man who goes by the name of "DPL". The link for "DPL's" substack is here:
I would read his articles and find him on Twitter (at: https://twitter.com/dpl003 ) as well as others he follows on THAT platform. It sounds like you may not be aware of it, but there ARE others out there, specifically, there are those of us who ARE pushing back against the "virus pushers".
At any rate, I just wanted to reply to your comment and let you know that
Thank you for the link, Rod! I found lots of good material there. FWIW, (switching topics here), the whole genome sequencing story is full of BS too. The technology can actually measure 8 or 10 base pairs in sequence, and then they use software to create imaginary "genomes" for imaginary "viruses" (30,000 base pairs, as the storyline goes) or the human genome (50 million base pairs, as the magical storyline goes). The software patches millions of little snippets (the name the techs give to the DNA fragments) into a sequence that the story says, "This is the genome!" Different labs grind up blood or tissue from people who are "infected" with an imaginary "virus," and when their software comes up with a mismatch to the "approved" sequence in the BLAST database, the lab publishes a paper that says, "Look at us! We discovered a new variant!" Such complete BS. The scale of the virus/genome/vax scam is astonishing! And it (at least the vax part from the 1700s) is hundreds of years old. They never really got rolling on the fake virus storyline and scam until about 150 years ago. And here we are today - five generations (greatgrandparents to grandkids) believing in the scam. Including our "brilliant" doctors (sigh). Thank you again for your comment to me!
appreciate the thrust of your (and Rod's) line of enquiry. I am not really interested to get overmuch into the nuts and bolts of the scamming but i can piggyback ahead better knowing your good exposures :) cheers
Absolutely! I am aware of the fact that there are now SERIOUS DOUBTS about genomics and genetics, etc. However, I only became aware of these issues in the last couple years, despite the fact that I've been an "AIDS" dissident since 1995. Have you seen the following articles/analyses of these issues?
The 'medical community' cant help you. The first thing which might help you is to try and re-read your comment above as if it was written by someone else... and observe all the hidden but implicit psychological contortions been made over the years to try and pin down the 'why' of symptoms, and how we as individuals create our own story based on a framework of other's stories, including meanings attributed to lab tests.
Wouldnt it be great if we could expunge (exorcise is probably the correct term!) all the crap info we have ingested, progressively making us wither on the vine, as it is impossible to win the battle we unwittingly participate in.
Listen to what you identify with....(and remember our whole life is a story we have created so as to feel safe and in control!...and i speak from my own experience of illness and vulnerability...any philosophising I make has a bedrock of experience informing it.) We are in this together!
You pigeon-hole yourself firmly as having AIDS...and that is because you are told so... the (arbitrary) tests confirm so. The reading and research may have become myopic if listening to the likes of virologists (Kevin's comment i suggest you best heed well).
So much guff exists...mind-boggling (up arse) 'scientific' delving....all rubbish when based on false premises, just assumptions, not proven....like 'the virus' exists.
You identify with all the 'victims' who succumbed to THE individual (aka the Grim Reaper). I wonder at what point you learnt of all this suffering and death 'due to' this man. Was there correlation with a new fear rising in you and new physical symptoms? (putting on your most rational 'hat'...can any thing ever be passed in saliva?)
"My husband and I have identical symptoms AND immune systems."....this is quite a statement. You sound so convinced. But surely ridiculous to ever contemplate ....again, all you go by is what you are told is meaningful from a biological test (S) supposed to indicate something or another of supposedly how your body, your 'immunity' works. What if it is all mistaken? ( last eve i listened to Barre, and his wife, and one of Bigelow sons....Josh..you might want to watch and it may lead you on to new explorations as to your state?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuCI3YmRhxc)......
Maybe you just are at the next level of 'joined at the hip' co-dependency in your marital relationship?...sorry, i say that off the top of my head, but any humour may have a grain of truth. Like with menstruation synch between women living together, such a shared illness dynamic can play out for you two accordingly so...?
Please dont take me as unsympathetic, but maybe you need to hear some disruptive opinion? Your disbelief needs magnifying ...but in response to new lines of inquiry, unbeknown but influencing you.....to surprise and empower you when you start casting off old beliefs, taking on board new truer info, and get in the flow of life...the constant recreating of our stories of our life so far lived!
Oh how I want to believe that my (and my husband's) illness is all just phycological. I too would have never believed that I could get a deadly disease from someone's saliva. But trust me, this is real. We both have something that's destroying our immune systems (b cells, NK cells and CD4 cells), disabling fatigue, infections that will not clear up, etc. I could go on and on. My primary care physician agrees that this is an infectious disease/virus. I've been with him for over 30 years and he knows how healthy I was prior to this saliva incident. It's the infectious disease doctors that want nothing to do with you if you have immune deficiency with no sign of HIV, even if there's two of you! I don't expect people to understand or believe this because we all have been brainwashed for so long that HIV is the (sole) cause of AIDs and that kissing someone will not give you a deadly disease. You have to be in the situation to understand. I speak up for all of the people out there with chronic illness including ME/CFS. May I recommend the following excellent books to you. I hope you can read them with an open mind: 1) By author Neenyah Ostrom: America's Biggest Coverup 2nd Edition 50 More Things Everyone Should Know About Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and it Link to AIDs 2) By author Hillary Johnson: The Why: This Historic ME/CFS Call to Arms and 3) By author Charles Ortleb: The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Epidemic Cover-Up. These are excellent books and you will get a very good understanding on the history of CFS and how the CDC has been covering up this illness for decades. I hope you will never have to experience an illness like this because it is truly a living hell. One last word of advice: Be careful who you kiss.
If it was ok with you, (and your husband), I would kiss you!
The psychological emanates from the framework we hold of what we believe health and illness are. Is the human being (any living entity) a self-regulating organism with repair and maintenance internal systems 24/7 responsive to external assaults/disruptions/poisonings. The analogy might be that of the body responding to being punched...the blow results in a pain and a bruise...the body adjusts itself and repairs the damage caused.
The concept of immunity can only have fuel if one has belief that all around us are infecting agents poised to inhabit and parasitise us. But what if that isnt the case, and that for that reason we dont have 'immune systems' ? (I just recently watched a video by Dr Sam Bailey where she spoke of aetiology of 'cholera symptoms' which tweaked my thinking about this dis-ease exhibited by a person. The copious watery diarrhoea is the acute self-healing response to the assault of filthy water poisoning our cells. It is not infection as such, it is poisoning, and the diarrhoea is life-saving ridding of the filth (and it is upon us for mindful self-care, to compensate our mistaken drinking of polluted water, so to rehydrate with sugar/salted clean water))
So is AIDS a misnomer?...must be if we dont have an immune system!
HIV/AIDS/ME/CFS etc...all 3 letter agencies like CDC/FDA/ CIA/FBI/WHO/ ....not to be trusted as entities oozing truth and well-being!...
I just suspect we have thoroughly been led down the garden path in so many ways....and our minds are screwed in the way we view anatomy and pathology, and thus how we view and approach our symptoms when our vital force is out of balance, is telling us so, (because the assaults are harming us) and asking us to do something about it. (ease off the damaging aspects of lifestyle impinging on well-being). In the meantime the illness symptoms can be detoxing as much as flagging up.
I have heard of the authors of the books you recommend, but I haven't read them. It would seem to me that ME/CFS/LongCovid/prostration of malaria (now that is result of an assault to be explored more) etc are all but variations of mitochondrial malfunction?? The very essences of the human are being nobbled because so much is out of kilter...resonance is wonky.
I wonder what these books say? Do any mention kissing as causation of this horrid fatigue? How far do they lay blame for the named illnesses on infective agents? My suspicion is that, just on the physical level, EMF's, spike proteins, pesticides, nanotech, graphene oxide, all the stuff in chemtrails, you name what, which we are having to endure in our environment, are combining as a lovely cocktail in us severely challenging our function as healthy human beings. Thus we get laid low, impaired, able to do little. (except be sedentary, seek comfort methods, get fat, use tech.... and go further towards our zombification and cyborghood)
Sorry LR if am digressing...but it feels like a malaise engulfs humanity, and we are increasingly under threat...and are we seeing clearly what are the dynamics of causation....on the micro and macro levels?
I have meandered around in my thinking but i hope you find it interesting to explore. I am open, (have to be as it is all rather ridiculous how we try so hard to pin down what actually is wrong with us!) but unless you give me other extensive info to make me doubt the wisdom of such, i would give you a kiss. :-)
(Rebecca, if you are reading, this is your substack....any comment re the saliva dynamic of infection?)
So, what have the CDC been covering up about these 'ME' etc illnesses.? And is there a level of covering up of a 'something else' less apparent to be questioning on your radar? It is all shifty business eh!
As for the 'infectious disease doctors'...they ignore you as they cant answer your questions. They are clueless, or just cant act upon their hunches, (as people rather than in role of dr) , as to what is going on for you and your husband. That is how it is? I imagine they just exist in bad faith in that they are unwilling to imagine or see the flaws in their 'profession'...and go along with the lies and bad practice. As has been so clearly evident in this 'covid' era.
My tone might give impression that i am unempathic...but i do appreciate how it is to feel vulnerable, and feel on the wrong side of a losing battle to be well. I have a propensity for thorn pricks to end up with gross response by my repair system (as Bigelson mentioned, inflammation is good for you)...yeah, but to go so overboard, and for years of upset in my colon in my twenties! It seems unfathomable why...but if we keep trying our best to know, and keep views evolving.... stuff can resolve....so all the best to you
From what I understand, AIDS is a group of diseases that have always existed and have been treated individually with conventional or alternative medicine treatments. The problem begins when a person labeled with HIV is diagnosed with one or more of these diseases, then It is considered AIDS. Then it is not a disease at all. It is a construct.
AIDS to my thinking is an utterly unique set of symptoms in an individual (manifesting sum total of their life experience stressors...including all episodes of illness) who is clearly very sick ,of failing health, who at some point of their malaise gets a so-called 'expert' Dr wading in to decide to 'diagnose' AIDS (oh, and the fake HIV tests 'positivity' will be precursor to facilitate the Dr to nail the ailing person as to be 'having' AIDS)
Aids is another way of saying what happens when you treat your body like shit with weird chemicals or toxins involved.
It can be an STD, or needle induced, or from sniffing poppers, I guess they call it amyl nitrate, nasty ass junkie garbage
The vaids is from too many vaxxxxines, I new thing, we hear similar but different than the old thing, the malnutrition thing, the partying aggressively too much thing...
There is no HIV. Viruses do not exist, as far as we know. Illnesses attributed to viruses or germs also cannot be transmitted. Every effort ever made to expose sick people to healthy people to prove transmission has failed. AIDS was a label they put on a set of unusual and serious symptoms experienced by gay men in the 1980s which was caused by some of the extreme behavior and drugs that were common in the gay scene at that time. It is not a sexual disease and is not transmissible.
AIDS is a syndrome, the clue is in the name, not a disease, so the short answer is no, AIDS is not an STD.
To put some flesh on the bones, AIDS in 1979-82, was the product of immune system hyperstimulation leading to burnout of the immune system, specifically the thymus which matures T4 cells. T4 cell depletion was the key immunological marker of AIDS back in the day. The HIV orthodoxy states that HIV killed the T4 cells but not even Montagnier agreed with that.
For very sexually active gay males the immune system hyperstimulation came from lots of semen in their amplification system, the bath-house, , lots of STIs, including Hepatitis B, lots of antibiotics, lots of 'street' drugs, lots of 'poppers' which led to Kaposi's sarcoma. For highly active, needle sharing, IVDU's the hyperstimulation came from injecting cocaine 6 times a day and sharing needles with 20+ other IVDU's in their amplification system, the shooting gallery.
For hemophiliacs, the hyperstimulation came from the availability of Factor 8 which meant they could take on board much more blood plasma related products containing many different types of viruses.
At the heart of my theory is that CMV contributed to, and took advantage of, the burning out of the immune system. It had long been associated with PCP, Toxo and KS before AIDS, and had killed many transplant patients in the 60s and 70s, all of whom suffered similar symptoms and opportunistic infections, to early 80s AIDS patients. CMV was found in 94% of sexually active gay males and 87% of IVDUs in 1981.
As RH Rubin wrote in 1977 in his paper, 'Infectious disease syndromes attributable to cytomegalovirus and their significance among renal transplant recipients'
Because of the ubiquity of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection among renal transplant patients, the correlation between CMV isolation and clinical events is often difficult. In this prospective study, clinical CMV disease was diagnosed in 26 of 68 patients (38%) that received transplants between 1974 and 1976 on the basis of viral isolation and/or >4-fold rise in complement-fixing antibody in patients with an unexplained febrile illness of >5 days' duration.
'All CMV syndromes began 1 to 4 months post-transplant, persisting up to 23 weeks thereafter (mean duration of symptoms was 19 days). Although CMV was observed in some instances to cause only prolonged fever (10 patients) or hepatitis (4 patients), its most important effects were pneumonia (9 patients) and profound leukopenia (8 patients). Three patterns of pneumonia were observed: bilateral interstitial pneumonia (3 patients), unilateral focal consolidation (1 patient) (both attributable to CMV alone), and diffuse bilateral pneumonia attributable to CMV and superinfecting microorganisms (5 patients). These last patients had CMV-induced leukopenia of >1 week's duration at onset of superinfection, and all died. The 4 patients without leukopenia did not develop superinfection, and all survived. Two other renal transplant recipients died of infection during this period, both with CMV, leukopenia, and Listeria monocytogenes sepsis.
The major infectious disease importance of CMV appears to be its effects on the respiratory tract and systemic host defense in predisposing to fatal superinfection.'
I'm of the opinion AIDS is a collection of diseases caused by the general mistreatment of the body. In America where pneumocystis pneumonia and Kaposi's sarcoma are most commonly tied to AIDS, I believe it likely stemmed from a combination of poppers/other drugs, overuse of antibiotics, excessive drinking, poor sleep schedule, poor diet and possibly even experimental Hepatitis B vaccines from the gay health clinics. Once AZT was on the market for a bit, it seemed like more "AIDS deaths" were being caused by that than anything else.
I'm new to the AIDS issue, even though I'm 60 and lived through AIDS in the 80s and 90s, I never paid any attention to it since I was neither gay nor an IV drug user (or any drug user for that matter).
As for whether I think AIDS is an STD or not I tend to believe it to be more a result of lifestyle than sex, although sex could be a factor. Having many sexual partners, doing the drugs and whatever else they do can't be good for one's health. The sheer number of partners that I've read that some gay men have is just astounding to me, I can't fathom what drives a person to think they can do that without some repercussions. Which brings me to my next point that there may be a psychological aspect of homosexualality that can possibly cause a compromised immune system. I know homosexualality has been around for ages but, in my opinion, it's an unnatural lifestyle, a deeply personal and intimate one at that. I can't help but think that those living that life know deep inside that what they are doing isn't natural and that may cause some internal stress which could lead to immune system problems.
One thing that isn’t talked about a lot is that there are more heterosexual people than you might think that are *extremely* promiscuous and/or use a lot of party drugs.
Hi Rebecca, probably doesnt matter if homo or hetero ...but if leading life according to unbridled lower urges (coming from a more esoteric outlook on what we are here as humans for...i am currently exploring Steiner teachings) then you are asking for trouble?
I am tending to think that any lifestyle practice based on lower impulses, (eg for sex, intoxication, of addiction, of aggression etc) implicitly harmful (treating neither oneself , nor another, with love and respect, 'like a temple') is perhaps not the self acting...but prey to some other little, or larger, demonic dictate. But in the absence of a mindfulness, (and in a presence of over-spontaneity, even a recklessness? ), a self will run with them... them 'little devils' ?
Back in 1978 ... like now ... the deadly weapon was in the syringe ... gay men in big U.S. cities who got the experimental Hep B injections are the very same demographic group who (within a just few months after the shots!) started DROPPING DEAD Like flies ... but amazingly NOBODY but nobody -- except Dr. Alan Cantwell and perhaps a few others -- connected the dots!
Thanks. I just read through that thread. Fascinating. I've always wondered if there was something else going on beside the usual explanations, it's all been obsfucated by the 'HIV' theory. However, the Perth Group have been proven correct over time regarding the relationship between oxidation and AIDS and positivity. So this just presents itself as another puzzle piece.
Thanks for asking Rebecca. It would help if you could define for us what you mean by "AIDS". Do you mean immune deficiency, or immune dysfunction in general, or the often changing list of known diseases and conditions that the medical establishment has assigned to its "AIDS" umbrella? Either way, to me the answer would be No, this range of diseases/conditions would not constitute an STD. It is important, however, to better understand the root causes of immune deficiency and immune dysfunction, which clearly have nothing to do with the results of an HIV test. More likely frequent and repeated stressors to the body.
Peter Duesberg has asserted that it's not the amount of sex per se but the inordinate amount of recreational drugs taken to enhance sexual experiences along with constant use of antibiotics for the repeated actual STD's from having multiple partners, that contribute to breaking down the immune system.
But other stressors can also harm the immune system, as we saw with the extreme covid fear-mongering 3-1/2 years ago that surely produced such levels of anxiety and terror in some to contribute to their body breaking down. The covid jabs are also likely harmiful to immune function.
And there are surely other causes for less well publicized aspects of immune dysfunction (which you write about in your book The Real AIDS Epidemic) that need to be more fully explored.
Strictly speaking, no I don't think AIDS is a classical STD. the prostitute paradox generally disproves that.
I know the Perth Group posits that a positive antibody test can be sexually acquired but not sexually transmitted; and a positive antibody test, while not indicating transmission of a virus, is associated with receptive anal intercourse and the development of AIDS. However, they point out that it's the frequency of exposure to semen that's what counts here, which is at odds with STD's being acquired with a single exposure AND being bi-directionally transmitted. So, to me this is a nebulous question when you look at all the factors that can cause a positive reaction on these crappy tests. AND the fact that prostitues who aren't drug users don't regularly develop a positive antibody test or AIDS.
I think AIDS isn't so much an STD as it is a marker for biological stressors from drugs, poppers, antiretrovirals, etc.
I've also thought a lot about the Perth Group's 'toxic semen' hypothesis. I think it's only relevant in the context of other significant oxidative stressors. But the hypothesis is bound up in the idea that AIDS is sexually associated, which is kind of tangential to whether it's an STD.
So ultimately I think AIDS is sexually associated more than it is an STD. It's also sexually associate because if you're sexually active as a gay man then you're pushed to frequently test, so there's a kind of selection bias at work here. A lot of guys who probably never did drugs, but had a lot of sex may have developed antibodies that reacted on the tests, but had they never known of that positive reaction would have lived a normal life, but who then were expected to go on toxic drugs AND took on the medical system's insistence that they were going to die early. Talk about modern day voodoo.
Valendar Turner
The Perth Group
September 5th 2023
The Perth Group "AIDS – SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED OR SEXUALLY ACQUIRED?" was the last manuscript the late Eleni Papadopulos submitted for publication [1]. In it she did not question the authenticity of HIV, HIV "isolation", or the antibody and “viral load” tests (PCR). Her premise was that STIs and STDs are bi-directionally spread. This means epidemiologists cannot prove HIV or AIDS an STD without distinguishing between insertive and receptive sexual partners. With heterosexuals this is unambiguously defined by gender. Since homosexual men may practise either or both insertive and/or receptive intercourse, making this distinction is problematic.
As a thought experiment, one can choose to ignore the latter and focus on heterosexual evidence. In fact, one can go even further. One can temporarily accept there is proof for male-to-female transmission and ask, "What is the evidence that sex between HIV positive females and HIV negative males causes the latter to seroconvert"? From the most oft cited prospective studies she concluded there was no such evidence. She then asked, if HIV were an unconventional STI/STD, that is, can be unilaterally sexually transmitted male-to-female, (invoking pregnancy as a metaphor), how do the heterosexual males get infected? (In order that they can infect the females).
In the manuscript she reasoned, "In terms of a retroviral infection this can only signify the male partner first acquiring HIV by non-sexual means following which he transmits it to the passive [female] partner. However, unless one accepts that millions of heterosexual males (including Africans) are haemophiliacs, transfusion recipients or drug addicts, this is a highly unlikely explanation. [I venture it exceeds the distance to Alpha Centauri]. Hence, one is obliged to search for evidence for an alternative interpretation in the passive [female] partners...That is, factors other than a retroviral infection that can explain acquired immune deficiency (low T4 cell count) and antibody reactions with test kit antigens". The latter means a positive antibody test [1].
Bear in mind the only proof for sexual transmission is epidemiological studies. Unpacking these, there are no RCT type studies. RCTs are inconceivable because they are ethically forbidden. One would need to recruit a group of people and randomly assign half to become the sexual partners of people with HIV infection, and then compare the proportion that develop HIV infection in this group to the corresponding proportion in the other half that did not have sexual partners with HIV infection. That leaves observational studies which are not randomised. The vast majority of these are cross-sectional which, by definition, have no time element. Thus they cannot prove transmission. In its Basic Epidemiology book, even the WHO concedes cross-sectional studies “weak” in the hierarchy of different types of study to "prove" causation” [2]. “Weak” does not justify pitching Grim Reapers at 30 billion heterosexuals [3]. There are a few prospective studies and even fewer regularly held up as proof.
Professor Stuart Brody, who has published numerous papers on sex and HIV, unpacked the epidemiologists' strategy. “The primary basis for considering heterosexual intercourse to be a significant source of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections is the logical exclusion process: patients acknowledge heterosexual intercourse, but deny homosexual and recreational intravenous activity (and contaminated transfusions)”. Furthermore, “At first, such a deductive process seems quite sound. But as one begins to consider the garbled nature of the sexual practice categories and the invalid reports of both fairly normal and psychopathological patient groups, the reasoning underlying this exclusion process disintegrates”. Brody concludes, “the basic issue of whether the patient or subject is responding honestly about their sexual and drug history is often given minimal attention. When it is addressed, it is noted as a source of error variance, but the transmission assumptions remain fixed”.
A propos, in regard to the scant numbers of men infected by women, it is hard to beat the New York City Department of Health (NYCDOH), “AIDS Surveillance Update” data, 25th January 1989: “In New York City, the heterosexual AIDS capital of the United States, out of 18,000 cases diagnosed by early 1989, only 7 males have been identified as having gotten AIDS from heterosexual intercourse” [3].
If there is no retroviral explanation for HIV positive tests in female heterosexuals, how can one invoke a retroviral infection in anyone who tests HIV positive? In other words, the heterosexual data, even the female-to-male data alone, are sufficient reason to re-examine the HIV theory of AIDS.
Endnotes
1. Sixth file at http://theperthgroup.com/hivexist.html
2. Bonita, Ruth, Beaglehole, Robert, Kjellström, Tord & World Health Organization. (2006). Basic epidemiology, 2nd ed. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/435413.
3. In 1987 Australia, heterosexual sex=death begat the three million dollar Grim Reaper campaign. This slick TV commercial was based on the belief that AIDS could "kill more Australians than World War II". For just over a minute young and old alike were treated to a nefarious, hooded, scythe-bearing animated corpse in black garb, launching a gigantic, two metre bowling ball at ten mums, dads, a footballer, terrified kids and a woman holding a baby. As the ball struck, nine fell to their deaths. The woman and baby required a second ball. The finale, redolent of the solitary, monumental cymbal clash in Bruckner’s Seventh Symphony, had the baby’s head snapping off. Eleven lifeless bodies, laying in a disjointed heap of smoke laden, end-of-times rubble, were then scraped away to make way for the next lot of victims. 72,814 Australian service men and women died in World War II. As of Dec 31st 2020, a cumulative total of 7962 Australians had died from AIDS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSmaWEK_rD4
4. Michael Fumento. 1990. The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS. New York: Basic Books. page 17.
5. In the 1980s and 1990s Papadopulos managed to get some papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. After that the orthodoxy grew tired of, and increasingly hostile to, dissidents. They did everything possible to prevent even a hint of heterodoxy reaching the populace. For instance, see [6] and Professor John Moore. In 2007 Moore emailed an AIDS dissident, "This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly (at least the more influential ones; foot-soldiers like you aren't worth bothering with)” (his emphasis).
In 1993 Papadopulos argued that the HIV antibody tests have not been proven fit for purpose [7]. That is, to diagnose HIV infection. This paper was comprehensively ignored and her claim stands. Pragmatically Papadopulos then began focusing on other elements of the HIV theory, assuming, for the sake of argument, that HIV, HIV “isolation” and viral load are bona fide. By pointing out several “downstream” problems, she hoped scientists would eventually transplant their attention to the root cause of the HIV theory. That is, to HIV itself, and the tests claimed to prove infection with it. Note that she did have one last attempt at the root but no editor would touch it [8]. Such is the realpolitik of life as a scientist. Julius Robert Oppenheimer was surely reminiscing an antediluvian Eden in his 1953, “House of Science” BBC Reith Lecture: “We go in and out; even the most assiduous of us is not bound to this vast structure. One thing we find throughout the house: there are no locks; there are no shut doors; wherever we go there are the signs and usually the words of welcome. It is an open house, open to all comers [9].
6. http://theperthgroup.com/HIV/TPGVirusLikeNoOther.pdf#page=36. (From line 4).
7. http://www.theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/EPENatBioTech1993.pdf
8. http://theperthgroup.com/HIV/TPGVirusLikeNoOther.pdf
9. http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/radio4/transcripts/1953_reith6.pdf
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p00hg2d6
Dear Dr. Turner,
I hope that you are well, and I hope that you will take the time to respond to this message. In your comment above, you wrote that, in the manuscript titled "AIDS – SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED OR SEXUALLY ACQUIRED?", the late Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos "did not question the authenticity of HIV, HIV 'isolation', or the antibody and 'viral load' tests (PCR)..." Unfortunately, you did not supply a direct link to the document, but your reference states:
"1. Sixth file at http://theperthgroup.com/hivexist.html"
The CURRENT version of this document that is available at your (The Perth Group's) web site appears at the following direct link:
https://www.theperthgroup.com/HIV/TPGSexTransMHNote.pdf
Can you please tell me is THIS the document to which you were referring when you wrote that Eleni "did not question the authenticity of HIV, HIV 'isolation', or the antibody and 'viral load' tests (PCR)..."...??? If yes, then in THAT document that is posted at the link above, one can CLEARLY read analyses of these very topics which in your message above, you claim that Eleni excluded from the manuscript. Can you please tell me if you are referring to THIS specific version of the manuscript that is currently posted on the Perth Group's web site and is at the direct link I've supplied above? Or are you referring to an EARLIER version of the manuscript that is NOT publicly available?
If you ARE referring to the current version that appears at the link above, then why did you make those claims about the document, i.e., claims that appear to be demonstrably false...??
I look forward to hearing your answer!
Best regards!
Rodney
Thank you for pointing out this error. The cited sexual transmission manuscript does discuss antibody tests. I had forgotten the manuscript was originally two manuscripts. (Both of which were eventually rejected. See first page, your second link). The first MS finished with: "Hence, one is obliged to search for evidence for an alternative interpretation in the passive partners (male and female). That is, factors other than a retroviral infection that can explain acquired immune deficiency (low T4 cell count) and antibody reactions with test kit antigens". The next sentence segues into material of the second manuscript. "There are at least two possibilities, either or both of which may be operative".
My mistake does not alter the fact that the validity of the HIV tests are not questioned to argue the unidirectional heterosexual transmission of AIDS.
FYI, Eleni Papadopulos realised that questioning the isolation of HIV had become a bridge too far. But, if she was correct - that the phenomena claimed as HIV isolation could be due to non-viral causes - then, sooner or later, it would be revealed "downstream". That is, in studies premised on the antibody tests being highly sensitive and specific for HIV infection. Acting on this premise she wrote the original, first MS of "AIDS-sexually transmitted or sexually acquired?"
For those interested in our published, peer-reviewed papers on the HIV antibody tests, please see 1-3 below. Item 4 was submitted as a letter to the NEJM but rejected. The video is based on this manuscript.
1. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E., V. F. Turner, et al. (1993). "Is a positive
Western blot proof of HIV infection?" Bio/Technology 11: 696-707.
http://leederville.net/links/EPENatBioTech1993.pdf
2. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E., V. F. Turner, et al. (1997). "HIV antibodies:
further questions and a plea for clarification." Current Medical Research
and Opinion 13: 627-634.
http://www.theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/EPECurrMedResOpinHIVABFurther1997.pdf
3. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E., V. F. Turner, et al. (1998). "HIV antibody tests
and viral load--more unanswered questions and a further plea for
clarification." Current Medical Research and Opinion 14: 185-186.
http://www.theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/EPECurrMedResOpinHIVAB&VLMore1998.pdf
4. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, e. a. (2003) "Evidence that HIV antibody tests are
non-specific based on decay of maternal antibodies in children of HIV
positive mothers".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf4mM3CGRx8
https://theperthgroup.com/REJECTED/NEJMMatAB3f.pdf
Thank you Dr. Turner. This clarifies things and is very enlightening.
I zoned out from all that detail....my question is.....
How do you know when someone has 'developed HIV'?
It might be time for you to start 'diggin in' to "all that detail", as that's where the truth lies. In a nutshell, what Dr. Turner said is that there's no proof of 'HIV transmission' in heterosexuals, and therefore there's no proof of transmission in gay men or anyone else. Any time there's a reaction on an 'HIV' antibody or genetic test, it's ALWAYS an assumption those reactions came from a body reacting to the presence of a new externally acquired infection by a retrovirus it's never encountered before. And there's the rub, it's ALWAYS an assumption that this is the case. There are a substantial number of things that cause reactions on these tests, they're a grab-bag of reactivity.
I do not understand your question. Do you mean "has become infected with HIV"?
I was spurred to ask the question reading this paragraph...
"Bear in mind the only proof for sexual transmission is epidemiological studies. Unpacking these, there are no RCT type studies. RCTs are inconceivable because they are ethically forbidden. One would need to recruit a group of people and randomly assign half to become the sexual partners of people with HIV infection, and then compare the proportion that develop HIV infection in this group to the corresponding proportion in the other half that did not have sexual partners with HIV infection."
I suppose you answered in the sentence preceding this paragraph....
"....factors other than a retroviral infection that can explain acquired immune deficiency (low T4 cell count) and antibody reactions with test kit antigens". The latter means a positive antibody test [1]."
So essentially you mean 'development of HIV' is according to test results deemed positive and pertinent, not an exhibiting of any symptoms of illness. Is that correct?
And then are you also in agreement with Christopher T in his comment to my question ? He speaks of the "grab-bag of reactivity" that characterises these tests...the 'substantial number of things that cause reactions on these tests'.
I agree with what Christopher says but I am not sure you do... to speak of 'development of HIV' cant have any basis of truth if the tests dont indicate anything specific
Dr Turner we have millions of people who are HIV positive and mostly they attribute their infection from sexual transmission, how is it that happens when partner is positive then the other test positive in a long run, whether such was known and hidden to the partner or one partner cheats unknowingly that they cheat with "HIV positive" person and come home to infect their partner,
In other instance one partner got infected through contact with infected bodily fluids then also infect the partner through sex
Hi X man. Let me repeat the first sentence of my previous response to your comment......."It is a long and arduous process to cast off the weaving contorted thread of 'HIV' wrapped around one's mind I witness in your comment."
From what I recall you said of your personal circumstance in a comment on another post by Rebecca, is that you are effectively ensnared in a situation whereby there has been a 'HIV+' test result of someone close to you, thus the expectation is that YOU have to test. So you are stuck with trying to work out for yourself what the concepts of 'HIV/AIDs mean to you, whilst under pressure (from specific partner, to general a.n.others, to the prevailing societal viewpoint) to conform and 'be responsible' and go get tested.
This is a horrible situation to be placed in. But has to be faced, and thrashed out with your partner. Of course the line of least resistance (in the immediate term) would be to seek to justify that HIV is a real thing, a fact of life....and this is what i glean is the thrust of your (mainly unconscious?) attitude i surmise from the angle and tone of your comments. You on the one hand want to avoid a 'HIV diagnosis' (and for sure you dont want that infliction of 'forever taint' effect....however ridiculous in truth it might be), yet how can you proceed with your partner, you remaining as partners, without you agreeing to offer yourself for the tests? 'The devil you do, the devil you dont'...
(even if you are 'HIV-ve' then you will have your wranglings over how did my partner 'become HIV+' ?)
It is all a minefield...by design i would say.
Personally, my advice is for you and your partner to grab the bull by the horns, be very open and honest with each other (and that maybe isnt so common customarily between spouses on the African continent eh) and research widely, make it your mission, and i think you will indeed come to conclude, ( like I, and thousands of others who have put time and energy to understand better) that her 'HIV' diagnosis is meaningless, (or you decide in tandem it is meaningless enough, we cant know eh) thus there is no sense for you to go for any tests which might label you HIV+.
Manouevre yourselves away from this nefarious entrapment and be freer...
I mean do you feel the wind? Have you seen the wind, touch it contain it? But you believe the strong wind can have devastating effect infact you see the devastating effects of the wind, but with virus you want people to show you the "virus" whilst you have seen it's effect, please don't take this personally when I say you I just mean the "no virus" people, my friend caught Covid 2 times and his experience says it's different from ordinary flue and ever since he has been prone to flue, the virus world is very complex unfortunately the scientist's never want to openly discuss the issue because there's money to make for all camps, whether virus pusher (pills) or denial (cures, books etc) I guess we will never get to the bottom of it🙄
What I don't get is the meaningless part, my research on this subject left me with more questions than answers, it's hard to say the test is meaningless when the outcome thereof are so crucial either to llforever destroy you or continue with normal life,
I've come across with partners who have mixed status for years like 31 years they are now in their late 50s, I read someone story had one encounter of sex then became positive for both HSV and HIV on X(Twitter), I khow of a man who tested positive and 10 years later test negative without taking ARVs on different location but the system still regard him as positive, I know of lady who was positive for years on treatment and her Dr just called her out of the blue to re run the test because the depression pills she was on gives false positive, so this is a complex situation I thought it is straight forward, I also see very sick people coming back to "life" after taking treatment, so many theories as to the change of status, undetectable viral load, cured by clean diet and God's hand in some cases, just the other day I read of a lady who says she is positive for 9 years without ARVs and recently went for viral load tests and she is undetectable. So yes what I can't wrap my head around is the no existence of the virus, I think the impact is so huge to ignore
Is it not the case of there being a point reached whereby questions that remain unanswered amass to an over-riding serious doubt? The whole edifice of HIV/AIDS (and Covid etc) has been spawned by global-wide 'trust' (primary), then 'belief' (secondary) that the antibody and PCR tests are meaningful diagnostic tools.
This morning I dipped into my copy of Rebecca's 2023 ed book. She so rigorously analyses, highlighting the myriad examples of logic-shortfall in the chapter "Problems with the HIV tests".
Prior to reading this delve(complicated for my foggy analytical mind!)) , I read her summary at the end of the book of the "Failed Predictions of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis". (and she reminds us... there were a volley of grave predictions, [cunningly laced with hope of cure], right from the time of the 'Grim Reaper of HIV/AIDS' pronouncement in the media... catching the world off guard).
Looking at what we have been told to believe in light of what hasnt transpired, and what doesn't add up, there is strong case for judging the root of meaninglessness in the hypothesis.
This meaningless can only be taken on board if one doesnt conflate/mix in the meaning taken on board by an individual been told they are HIV+ , whereby the mind/emotion/body absorbs the 'demon' diagnosis, and an internal 'coping' response dynamic is activated. What I am saying is that if you trust and believe in the tests then if you are deemed positive that is the infection you allow in. And thus come the effects the individual experiences/ conjures up as utterly meaningful and even life-consuming...their 'reality'...
But, a syndrome unleashed solely resulting from trust and belief in the tests!
I only came to properly question the HIV tests because of the spotlight (seen if one was curious to be acting on one's suspicion 'covid' was a doubtful entity) put on PCR etc tests in early 2020. And, as i said in an earlier comment, it requires a broad delve over time into info (a task massively assisted by the internet) for doubt to harden.
All the people you know, or have heard of, with their varied experiences within the HIV/AIDS Paradigm/construct, of course magnify the reality of humanity. We each are unique energetic beings, so we each have our unique state of health/illness and we each have our own disposition to best dance with/cope with the lies bouncing about in the world.
Jon Rappoport wrote an article which remains with me in how he keeps cognisant the fact that there isnt any illness that fits all, can be subscribed to any beyond a single person (something like that...my takeaway) Let me try find that article link....as Jon is great banging on about LOGIC and IMAGINATION. Is not logic analysing to the fullest (as Rebecca aims for) the so-called facts presented....and finding how they aren't joined up. Is not Imagination going beyond (stimulated within the holes of the lying narrative) what one is told to listen to...but draw on one's however many senses, and soul memory, to find own path and decide what is our personal reality, not that which others try and foist upon us?
The huge impact of 'viruses' I agree cannot be ignored. (even if they only amount to ideas we buy into) The impact is dreadful, and it does pain me to know the quiet or explicit suffering going on because of the HIV concept....because i have had that simmering aetiology too
We feel the wind, we see trees and other objects being impacted by the wind, people's hair blowing in the wind....but we dont see viruses, we imagine them. And we believe the guff we are told! (guff is schoolboy term for wind (flatulence) if you weren't aware).
We keep exploring eh....
Here is Jon... not the article i was particularly talking about...but gives an intro of flavour.... https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2022/05/03/the-whole-covid-and-aids-fraud-my-35-years-of-investigation/
Hi X man. It is a long and arduous process to cast off the weaving contorted thread of 'HIV' wrapped around one's mind I witness in your comment.
Let me share a bit of how it was for me..........
On my HIV diagnosis I pondered my sexual history (far from promiscuous) and wondered HOW?
I had given oral sex to a friend who was decimated mentally by her HIV diagnosis (and has subsequently died of what i would deem psychosomatically induced physical symptoms). In the mix was to show some love to her, to allay her sense of being forever tarnished. Did I 'catch HIV' from her?
I developed a longterm relationship with a widowed woman, her deceased husband a friend of mine. Was she with HIV passed to me?, and that my friend had been unfaithful, 'caught HIV' (and finally ended up dying of AIDS?...not sleeping sickness/quinine overdose it appeared to be to me?) from his dalliance partner, and passed on to her??...unbeknown to her with good health (but who was tested, and 'positive HIV' after my diagnosis, so was herself 'trapped' by the diagnosis and developed cancer and subsequently died)...
Did i 'catch HIV' ?? from a woman i met in a bar who i hung out with for the eve, and i decided to (uncharacteristically for me) have this kind of casual sex with upstairs on the flat roof... and then felt mortified when she asked me for money 'for her services'....aagh.
Otherwise i had had blood transfusions when ill in the 1980's... had that blood 'contained HIV'?
OR... what if my history of illness of ulcerative colitis, malaria, and who knows what else that impacted my immune system in my life (including the childhood vax, and the recommended ones i took going to Kenya in the 1980's) provided the 'markers' for me to be deemed HIV positive by the various 'HIV tests' ( taken without my consent when ill and on antibiotics for a very infected leg in a hospital in Kenya) ????.
All in all it has been set up as a horrid marauding mind-f...'ing blight on our sense of health and well-being. To extricate one's mind from fear and imaginings induced by the mind virus of HIV is very hard going. It goes so deep eh X man ....and you could quite well be reading my story as confirmation that HIV does exist, and that it causes AIDS...... as 3 people in my life here died...but all deemed to have aetiology of HIV labelling from spurious testing process!
reposting the above as in doing edit not all of comment is showing on re-post....
Hi X man. It is a long and arduous process to cast off the weaving contorted thread of 'HIV' wrapped around one's mind I witness in your comment.
Let me share a bit of how it was for me..........
On my HIV diagnosis I pondered my sexual history (far from promiscuous) and wondered HOW?
I had given oral sex to a friend who was decimated mentally by her HIV diagnosis (and has subsequently died of what i would deem psychosomatically induced physical symptoms). In the mix was to show some love to her, to allay her sense of being forever tarnished. Did I 'catch HIV' from her?
I developed a longterm relationship with a widowed woman, her deceased husband a friend of mine. Was she with HIV passed to me?, and that my friend had been unfaithful, 'caught HIV' (and finally ended up dying of AIDS?...not sleeping sickness/quinine overdose it appeared to be to me?) from his dalliance partner, and passed on to her??...unbeknown to her with good health (but who was tested, and 'positive HIV' after my diagnosis, so was herself 'trapped' by the diagnosis and developed cancer and subsequently died)...
Did i 'catch HIV' ?? from a woman i met in a bar who i hung out with for the eve, and i decided to (uncharacteristically for me) have this kind of casual sex with upstairs on the flat roof... and then felt mortified when she asked me for money 'for her services'....aagh.
Otherwise i had had blood transfusions when ill in the 1980's... had that blood 'contained HIV'?
OR... what if my history of illness of ulcerative colitis, malaria, and who knows what else that impacted my immune system in my life (including the childhood vax, and the recommended ones i took going to Kenya in the 1980's) provided the 'markers' for me to be deemed HIV positive by the various 'HIV tests' ( taken without my consent when ill and on antibiotics for a very infected leg in a hospital in Kenya) ????.
All in all it has been set up as a horrid marauding mind-f...'ing blight on our sense of health and well-being. To extricate one's mind from fear and imaginings induced by the mind virus of HIV is very hard going. It goes so deep eh X man ....and you could quite well be reading my story as confirmation that HIV does exist, and that it causes AIDS...... as 3 people in my life here died...but all deemed to have aetiology of HIV labelling from spurious testing process!
I'm not passing any judgement my brother but it seem evidence suggest there's a virus that is mostly transmitted via bodily fluids, blood and semen
As for other reasons, like vaccines, ulcerative colitis, blood transfusion, I don't know my brother but the argument might be not everyone who have a sever UC test, positive, so many people have been vaccinated against Covid and other conditions but still test negative for HIV, blood transfusion in the 80s possibilities are there
You had unprotected sex and oral sex with "HIV positive people widow of your friend " you also had sex with prostitute (unprotected) and you say 3 people died of AIDS all of whom were HIV positive, so what makes you not to believe HIV exist and leads to AIDS?
Hi X Man....I wrote this yesterday before had to get on with other stuff...i am sending now, and will respond to your other comments later when with more time....
And I will comment on the importance of having our kind of 'alive' conversation as we are examples of how our lives are impacted by the material or imaginery existence of the presented HIV conceptual framework. In the overall perspective for humanity getting to grips with what HIV is/isnt we have to engage with it in an alive way...that involves all the randomness of our feelings, thoughts, intuition, and faith. Intellectual analysis alone cant rid this thing from our consciousness... Rebecca does sterling work, playing a role in stimulating an awareness of how things dont add up, but at the end of the day it is our own individual process which will cause us to run with what we deem is truth
I guessed you would have difficulty to not conclude my experience supports the whole HIV/AIDS hypothesis racket.
For me, it is a question of firstly holding off judgement on what HIV is, what AIDS is, how any 'thing' could be transmitted...it is more like deciding what they aren't, and being open to other forms of 'communication/transmission' possibility, of non-material form, (as all is energy, light, sound) like photons between people?....and the offering oneself to the process of exploring views and information in the overall context of worldly matters going on over centuries (as in connecting dots... like someone like David Icke has been doing for decades).
However I try and explain myself , and ramble on within the restriction of language, I dont think you will get it....as you seem still ingrained in believing the narrative...as it is so so persuasive when millions of people are re-inforcing its energetic imprint on the Earth. It just exists as a bald truth eh. That's how it felt for me too.
But if you keep exploring I think you will see it differently eventually, and be able to take a stance, rather than forever being not sure enough, and sitting on the fence....thus strongly within the thrall of HIV/AIDS manipulation modality.
I can only tell of my experience and the stance that feels right for me....I am still caught up in it...and will be for the rest of my life, as that HIV diagnosis has a life of its own (a demon that I can ever expunge?) ...with any whiff of sexual contact with a woman i have to mention this 'status'...it feels like a moral responsibility however far from any truth of the matter.
I can never be 100% sure that I am not a threat to someone through being labelled HIV, as i dont know what it is, if not anything. For a woman (my lack currently) engaging with me sexually i take as my benchmark there being worry for them at some level...even if having protected sex. (condom was used with that 'prostitute'by the way...i didnt know her contraceptive status so i couldnt risk pregnancy...and that isolated unusual event was 20 years prior to my 'HIV diagnosis') It is that kill of intimacy which is the devils greatest win. And it can harvest all the angst of HIV/AIDS generated over the globe (and now with all covid mindset harm, and more actual physical suffering to add)
AIDS is a scam and nonsense. Even the name is a scam. "Aquired" - from what, exactly - they don't know. Immune deficiency - exactly in what way? Syndrome - anytime you hear the word "syndrome" from the establishment, you know they don't have a clue about the source, etc. There's *still* no clear clinical definition of AIDS - they had to resort to "indicator diseases/symptoms" to pull under the magic funding umbrella of AIDS. And they've spent 34B on "research" without even creating a clinical definition or cause (supposedly a green monkey virus). What virus, exactly? There are no scientific papers that show the clear isolation and identification of *any* "virus." Nothing. No viruses of any kind, whatsoever. No Spanish Flu virus, no polio virus, Hong Kong flu (1960s), swine flu, no AIDS (1980s), H1N1/5, no SARS, MERS, Mad Cow, Ebola, etc. All bullshit and marketing and money and funding. And if you dig down on genetic sequencing of "viruses" (supposedly 30,000 base pairs in length), you will find out that the technology is only capable of *actually* sequencing DNA fragments 8-12 or maybe 18 base pairs at best. All the rest is software estimating and marketing. The whole scam is MASSIVE and disgusts me. No, AIDS is not an STD. AIDS is just your body breaking down when you treat it like shit (like another respondent said). The MSM does not tell you about all the "AIDS" patients who cleaned up their lifestyles and lived normal lives.
WORD!!! Thank you for an excellent sum-up!
I know for a fact that the form of AIDs that I and my husband have (not HIV) is definitely from an infectious disease/virus. I know exactly when I acquired this disease and from whom, and I then infected my husband. It was transmitted to me via a casual saliva exchange. The individual was an IV drug user, so I strongly suspect the virus is most likely what was found nearly 40 years ago by virologist Elaine Defrietas while investigating the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome outbreak at Lake Tahou. She had overwhelming evidence of an 'HTLV-2 like' virus, which makes all kinds of sense since HTLV-2 is a virus commonly found in IV drug users. The CDC conveniently could not (or would not) validate her findings. My guess is they wanted to hide this finding because they had just announced HIV as being the sole cause of AIDs. So, yes I absolutely believe that AIDs is an STD AND it can be transmitted very easily via saliva. I suspect that these cases have probably been on the decline since the HIV announcement due to extra precautions taken with IV drug users and dirtly needles, etc.
LR can you explain further why you view yourself as having a 'form of AIDS', so as to try and understand your thought process further. I assume you and your husband are not in good health, and (like myself for sure, when i got labelled HIV, and with periods of illness post and prior to ) you have scurried around trying to make sense of how and why you got ill/a diagnosis.
The fact is we all concoct our own story about it all, according to our personal experience and where we are with the knowledge/ignorance/ believing in lies, interface. Each to our own perspective, so we can get on with our lives. We do our best eh...
But I doubt we 'catch' anything on a material level, but rather all our 'illness' is internal process which is susceptible to impacts from the external environment (including communication with others...on a bio-photon level?)
I dont know what to think about STD's ...what they are really. Within homeopathy there is concept of miasms which are hereditary taints passed on by syphilis or gonorrhoea, which gives the new-born a pre-disposition... the syphilitic miasm is one of destruction, the gonorrhoea one is excess.
My thought process leads me onto just having read in 'AIDS Inc' of a gay guy in the 80's whose lifestyle was rife with excess and masochistic self-destruction, and he was labelled HIV, and with AIDS, and to die soon. He was a case in point of perhaps inheriting both miasms.
At the end of the day he chose to self-abuse, severely neglected himself, was well ungrounded...and illhealth was a must. Death was obvious (if i adopted that lifestyle today, well not the gay bit, but just the drugs ,I reckon i would be dead in a week). The medical establishment vultures swooped, threw AZT into the mix....it was a done deal (with the devil?, in myriad forms one could suppose)
In a conversation about the very broad topic of AIDS I dont think it is particularly useful to be having overfocus on such historical individuals. Unfortunately they (as for all of us in a way) got what was coming to them. History now.
The current paradigm is a fiction of HIV, but which is real imagined threat to those diagnosed and healthy (and now with the added maliciousness of pREP to those deemed at risk of 'catching' the myth) There are millions of people being misled all around the world, on all continents, in all kinds of personal circumstance and culture, and lifestyle.
AIDS has globally been around for ever...whenever a human being is ailing through neglect, hardship, trauma, stress, environmental poisonings, malnutrition, masochism, the body will 'cry out' in some way with symptoms. The worse the symptoms the more the Immune dysfunction/deficiency acquisition has to be sorted ... can we 'perish that thought'?
ps. to give him a shout out.....Aids Inc. is Jon Rappoport exposition on HIV/AIDs...(like he says re anything 'covid' etc....it is just an individual with their own particular set of symptoms according to their dis-ease due to their particular reasons for getting ill/out of balance...a dis-ease is uniquely personal, it cannot be categorized)
AIDS Inc, (and other good freebies giving his unique take on the human state), Jon is sharing to those who take out annual subscription on his Substack
Thank you for the inquiry. The form of AIDs that I and my husband have is deficient immunoglobulins and low NK cells. We also have borderline CD4 cells. We were both very healthy up until a specific event with an individual (saliva exchange) in 2013. This individual was a prior IV drug user. His wife had died of sepsis at age 50, 25 years earlier his infant died of an infection and he also stated that all the girlfriends he dated had passed away. There is no doubt in my mind that I acquired an infectious agent from this individual because soon after that incident, I started having many symptoms. My husband and I have identical symptoms AND immune systems. We have tested negative for HIV and HTLV as well as many other viruses. I also find it especially interesting that virologist Elaine Defreitas discovered an 'HTLV-2 like' virus nearly 40 years ago when investigating the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome outbreak at Lake Tahou. These individuals also had depleted B cells, NK cells, etc. I'm convinced that we have whatever these Lake Tahou individuals had nearly 40 years ago and I'm also thinking that it's some form of HTLV-2. I've done much reading and research over the past 10 years. The infectious disease doctors and the major hospitals like Mayo and Cleveland clinics are useless. They do not want to help us at all since we're testing negative for HIV. So, this is why I'm 150% sure that AIDs (or a form of it) is definitely due to an STD and it's very easily transmitted, i.e. via saliva. If I hadn't asked my doctor to send me to an immunologist, I would never have known that my immune system was deficient, and so I'm thinking there may be many more individuals with this infection (or may have been if they haven't passed away yet). I'm thinking that those with HIV and those with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome whom have a form of AIDs may actually have the same virus (not HIV) that is causing the AIDs. I'm still in disbelief of the whole situation. I'm also in disbelief that my husband and I have not been able to get any help or interest from the medical community. It is truly unbelievable.
Well, I'm sure that you have the symptoms you describe. And you seem to have spotted a key event after which you were sick. But your subsequent reasonings/statements have no basis in logic or factual science. To label "it" (your package of symptoms) AIDS when there is no clear clinical definition of AIDS seems like an irrational thing to do. And to say that you were "tested" for HIV, HTLV, or any other virus is understandable but nonetheless irrational when no one has ever isolated ANY virus whatsoever. So, how can they test for "something" when they have never isolated "something." Scientifically, any statement that involves the word virus is based on nothing more than propaganda. Instead, if the saliva event was indeed the source of your health problems, it would be much more rational to assert a poisoning of some kind from the saliva. And of course the MSM and infectious disease doctors are useless because they are bound to repeat the propaganda. BTW, it is not clear, scientifically (RCT trials, etc.), that infectious diseases exist. No one has ever been able to prove transmission and sickness for fake "viruses", the deadly fake Spanish Flu (Be Afraid!), measles, polio, or anything else. Look up Roseneau's Spanish Flu experiment in the Boston Public Health system circa 1918, for example. We (the people) will never get anywhere as long as we have PhD mathematicians and threads like this one arguing about fake HIV/AIDS scams and whether or not they are STDs (Be Afraid! Avoid Sex!). I watched my ex-girlfriend live most of her adult life thinking she was a leper (another scam) of some kind because the doctors "tested" her for a fake virus and told her she had it (oh, and had to take $$$ drugs for it for a couple of decades). The medical establishment and MSM disgust me. Sorry to say, but until someone proves scientifically that "viruses" exist, then any discussion about them or their supposed disease symptom is based on nothing more than imaginary thinking and propaganda.
Hi Kevin! Are you on Twitter, now "X"? I would take a look at another substack run by a man who goes by the name of "DPL". The link for "DPL's" substack is here:
https://dpl003.substack.com/
I would read his articles and find him on Twitter (at: https://twitter.com/dpl003 ) as well as others he follows on THAT platform. It sounds like you may not be aware of it, but there ARE others out there, specifically, there are those of us who ARE pushing back against the "virus pushers".
At any rate, I just wanted to reply to your comment and let you know that
YOU ARE NOT ALONE!! 😉😃
Thank you for the link, Rod! I found lots of good material there. FWIW, (switching topics here), the whole genome sequencing story is full of BS too. The technology can actually measure 8 or 10 base pairs in sequence, and then they use software to create imaginary "genomes" for imaginary "viruses" (30,000 base pairs, as the storyline goes) or the human genome (50 million base pairs, as the magical storyline goes). The software patches millions of little snippets (the name the techs give to the DNA fragments) into a sequence that the story says, "This is the genome!" Different labs grind up blood or tissue from people who are "infected" with an imaginary "virus," and when their software comes up with a mismatch to the "approved" sequence in the BLAST database, the lab publishes a paper that says, "Look at us! We discovered a new variant!" Such complete BS. The scale of the virus/genome/vax scam is astonishing! And it (at least the vax part from the 1700s) is hundreds of years old. They never really got rolling on the fake virus storyline and scam until about 150 years ago. And here we are today - five generations (greatgrandparents to grandkids) believing in the scam. Including our "brilliant" doctors (sigh). Thank you again for your comment to me!
appreciate the thrust of your (and Rod's) line of enquiry. I am not really interested to get overmuch into the nuts and bolts of the scamming but i can piggyback ahead better knowing your good exposures :) cheers
Absolutely! I am aware of the fact that there are now SERIOUS DOUBTS about genomics and genetics, etc. However, I only became aware of these issues in the last couple years, despite the fact that I've been an "AIDS" dissident since 1995. Have you seen the following articles/analyses of these issues?
1. https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/
2. https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2022/05/08/pcr-and-real-time-rt-pcr-under-critical-review/
If not, I suggest you take a look at them.
The 'medical community' cant help you. The first thing which might help you is to try and re-read your comment above as if it was written by someone else... and observe all the hidden but implicit psychological contortions been made over the years to try and pin down the 'why' of symptoms, and how we as individuals create our own story based on a framework of other's stories, including meanings attributed to lab tests.
Wouldnt it be great if we could expunge (exorcise is probably the correct term!) all the crap info we have ingested, progressively making us wither on the vine, as it is impossible to win the battle we unwittingly participate in.
Listen to what you identify with....(and remember our whole life is a story we have created so as to feel safe and in control!...and i speak from my own experience of illness and vulnerability...any philosophising I make has a bedrock of experience informing it.) We are in this together!
You pigeon-hole yourself firmly as having AIDS...and that is because you are told so... the (arbitrary) tests confirm so. The reading and research may have become myopic if listening to the likes of virologists (Kevin's comment i suggest you best heed well).
So much guff exists...mind-boggling (up arse) 'scientific' delving....all rubbish when based on false premises, just assumptions, not proven....like 'the virus' exists.
You identify with all the 'victims' who succumbed to THE individual (aka the Grim Reaper). I wonder at what point you learnt of all this suffering and death 'due to' this man. Was there correlation with a new fear rising in you and new physical symptoms? (putting on your most rational 'hat'...can any thing ever be passed in saliva?)
"My husband and I have identical symptoms AND immune systems."....this is quite a statement. You sound so convinced. But surely ridiculous to ever contemplate ....again, all you go by is what you are told is meaningful from a biological test (S) supposed to indicate something or another of supposedly how your body, your 'immunity' works. What if it is all mistaken? ( last eve i listened to Barre, and his wife, and one of Bigelow sons....Josh..you might want to watch and it may lead you on to new explorations as to your state?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuCI3YmRhxc)......
Maybe you just are at the next level of 'joined at the hip' co-dependency in your marital relationship?...sorry, i say that off the top of my head, but any humour may have a grain of truth. Like with menstruation synch between women living together, such a shared illness dynamic can play out for you two accordingly so...?
Please dont take me as unsympathetic, but maybe you need to hear some disruptive opinion? Your disbelief needs magnifying ...but in response to new lines of inquiry, unbeknown but influencing you.....to surprise and empower you when you start casting off old beliefs, taking on board new truer info, and get in the flow of life...the constant recreating of our stories of our life so far lived!
Oh how I want to believe that my (and my husband's) illness is all just phycological. I too would have never believed that I could get a deadly disease from someone's saliva. But trust me, this is real. We both have something that's destroying our immune systems (b cells, NK cells and CD4 cells), disabling fatigue, infections that will not clear up, etc. I could go on and on. My primary care physician agrees that this is an infectious disease/virus. I've been with him for over 30 years and he knows how healthy I was prior to this saliva incident. It's the infectious disease doctors that want nothing to do with you if you have immune deficiency with no sign of HIV, even if there's two of you! I don't expect people to understand or believe this because we all have been brainwashed for so long that HIV is the (sole) cause of AIDs and that kissing someone will not give you a deadly disease. You have to be in the situation to understand. I speak up for all of the people out there with chronic illness including ME/CFS. May I recommend the following excellent books to you. I hope you can read them with an open mind: 1) By author Neenyah Ostrom: America's Biggest Coverup 2nd Edition 50 More Things Everyone Should Know About Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and it Link to AIDs 2) By author Hillary Johnson: The Why: This Historic ME/CFS Call to Arms and 3) By author Charles Ortleb: The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Epidemic Cover-Up. These are excellent books and you will get a very good understanding on the history of CFS and how the CDC has been covering up this illness for decades. I hope you will never have to experience an illness like this because it is truly a living hell. One last word of advice: Be careful who you kiss.
If it was ok with you, (and your husband), I would kiss you!
The psychological emanates from the framework we hold of what we believe health and illness are. Is the human being (any living entity) a self-regulating organism with repair and maintenance internal systems 24/7 responsive to external assaults/disruptions/poisonings. The analogy might be that of the body responding to being punched...the blow results in a pain and a bruise...the body adjusts itself and repairs the damage caused.
The concept of immunity can only have fuel if one has belief that all around us are infecting agents poised to inhabit and parasitise us. But what if that isnt the case, and that for that reason we dont have 'immune systems' ? (I just recently watched a video by Dr Sam Bailey where she spoke of aetiology of 'cholera symptoms' which tweaked my thinking about this dis-ease exhibited by a person. The copious watery diarrhoea is the acute self-healing response to the assault of filthy water poisoning our cells. It is not infection as such, it is poisoning, and the diarrhoea is life-saving ridding of the filth (and it is upon us for mindful self-care, to compensate our mistaken drinking of polluted water, so to rehydrate with sugar/salted clean water))
So is AIDS a misnomer?...must be if we dont have an immune system!
HIV/AIDS/ME/CFS etc...all 3 letter agencies like CDC/FDA/ CIA/FBI/WHO/ ....not to be trusted as entities oozing truth and well-being!...
I just suspect we have thoroughly been led down the garden path in so many ways....and our minds are screwed in the way we view anatomy and pathology, and thus how we view and approach our symptoms when our vital force is out of balance, is telling us so, (because the assaults are harming us) and asking us to do something about it. (ease off the damaging aspects of lifestyle impinging on well-being). In the meantime the illness symptoms can be detoxing as much as flagging up.
I have heard of the authors of the books you recommend, but I haven't read them. It would seem to me that ME/CFS/LongCovid/prostration of malaria (now that is result of an assault to be explored more) etc are all but variations of mitochondrial malfunction?? The very essences of the human are being nobbled because so much is out of kilter...resonance is wonky.
I wonder what these books say? Do any mention kissing as causation of this horrid fatigue? How far do they lay blame for the named illnesses on infective agents? My suspicion is that, just on the physical level, EMF's, spike proteins, pesticides, nanotech, graphene oxide, all the stuff in chemtrails, you name what, which we are having to endure in our environment, are combining as a lovely cocktail in us severely challenging our function as healthy human beings. Thus we get laid low, impaired, able to do little. (except be sedentary, seek comfort methods, get fat, use tech.... and go further towards our zombification and cyborghood)
Sorry LR if am digressing...but it feels like a malaise engulfs humanity, and we are increasingly under threat...and are we seeing clearly what are the dynamics of causation....on the micro and macro levels?
I have meandered around in my thinking but i hope you find it interesting to explore. I am open, (have to be as it is all rather ridiculous how we try so hard to pin down what actually is wrong with us!) but unless you give me other extensive info to make me doubt the wisdom of such, i would give you a kiss. :-)
(Rebecca, if you are reading, this is your substack....any comment re the saliva dynamic of infection?)
So, what have the CDC been covering up about these 'ME' etc illnesses.? And is there a level of covering up of a 'something else' less apparent to be questioning on your radar? It is all shifty business eh!
As for the 'infectious disease doctors'...they ignore you as they cant answer your questions. They are clueless, or just cant act upon their hunches, (as people rather than in role of dr) , as to what is going on for you and your husband. That is how it is? I imagine they just exist in bad faith in that they are unwilling to imagine or see the flaws in their 'profession'...and go along with the lies and bad practice. As has been so clearly evident in this 'covid' era.
My tone might give impression that i am unempathic...but i do appreciate how it is to feel vulnerable, and feel on the wrong side of a losing battle to be well. I have a propensity for thorn pricks to end up with gross response by my repair system (as Bigelson mentioned, inflammation is good for you)...yeah, but to go so overboard, and for years of upset in my colon in my twenties! It seems unfathomable why...but if we keep trying our best to know, and keep views evolving.... stuff can resolve....so all the best to you
Thanks for sharing LR. I have been offline for nearly a week til today. I want to ponder this, and comment. Cheers. Best wishes
From what I understand, AIDS is a group of diseases that have always existed and have been treated individually with conventional or alternative medicine treatments. The problem begins when a person labeled with HIV is diagnosed with one or more of these diseases, then It is considered AIDS. Then it is not a disease at all. It is a construct.
AIDS to my thinking is an utterly unique set of symptoms in an individual (manifesting sum total of their life experience stressors...including all episodes of illness) who is clearly very sick ,of failing health, who at some point of their malaise gets a so-called 'expert' Dr wading in to decide to 'diagnose' AIDS (oh, and the fake HIV tests 'positivity' will be precursor to facilitate the Dr to nail the ailing person as to be 'having' AIDS)
It's any combination of 29 long preexisting diseases in combination with being "positive" on the wholly bogus HIV test.
29 is very specific assertion...who deemed what they are, and why were those boxed conditions chosen...on what basis?
utterly random concept!
Aids is another way of saying what happens when you treat your body like shit with weird chemicals or toxins involved.
It can be an STD, or needle induced, or from sniffing poppers, I guess they call it amyl nitrate, nasty ass junkie garbage
The vaids is from too many vaxxxxines, I new thing, we hear similar but different than the old thing, the malnutrition thing, the partying aggressively too much thing...
There is no HIV. Viruses do not exist, as far as we know. Illnesses attributed to viruses or germs also cannot be transmitted. Every effort ever made to expose sick people to healthy people to prove transmission has failed. AIDS was a label they put on a set of unusual and serious symptoms experienced by gay men in the 1980s which was caused by some of the extreme behavior and drugs that were common in the gay scene at that time. It is not a sexual disease and is not transmissible.
AIDS is a syndrome, the clue is in the name, not a disease, so the short answer is no, AIDS is not an STD.
To put some flesh on the bones, AIDS in 1979-82, was the product of immune system hyperstimulation leading to burnout of the immune system, specifically the thymus which matures T4 cells. T4 cell depletion was the key immunological marker of AIDS back in the day. The HIV orthodoxy states that HIV killed the T4 cells but not even Montagnier agreed with that.
For very sexually active gay males the immune system hyperstimulation came from lots of semen in their amplification system, the bath-house, , lots of STIs, including Hepatitis B, lots of antibiotics, lots of 'street' drugs, lots of 'poppers' which led to Kaposi's sarcoma. For highly active, needle sharing, IVDU's the hyperstimulation came from injecting cocaine 6 times a day and sharing needles with 20+ other IVDU's in their amplification system, the shooting gallery.
For hemophiliacs, the hyperstimulation came from the availability of Factor 8 which meant they could take on board much more blood plasma related products containing many different types of viruses.
At the heart of my theory is that CMV contributed to, and took advantage of, the burning out of the immune system. It had long been associated with PCP, Toxo and KS before AIDS, and had killed many transplant patients in the 60s and 70s, all of whom suffered similar symptoms and opportunistic infections, to early 80s AIDS patients. CMV was found in 94% of sexually active gay males and 87% of IVDUs in 1981.
As RH Rubin wrote in 1977 in his paper, 'Infectious disease syndromes attributable to cytomegalovirus and their significance among renal transplant recipients'
Because of the ubiquity of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection among renal transplant patients, the correlation between CMV isolation and clinical events is often difficult. In this prospective study, clinical CMV disease was diagnosed in 26 of 68 patients (38%) that received transplants between 1974 and 1976 on the basis of viral isolation and/or >4-fold rise in complement-fixing antibody in patients with an unexplained febrile illness of >5 days' duration.
'All CMV syndromes began 1 to 4 months post-transplant, persisting up to 23 weeks thereafter (mean duration of symptoms was 19 days). Although CMV was observed in some instances to cause only prolonged fever (10 patients) or hepatitis (4 patients), its most important effects were pneumonia (9 patients) and profound leukopenia (8 patients). Three patterns of pneumonia were observed: bilateral interstitial pneumonia (3 patients), unilateral focal consolidation (1 patient) (both attributable to CMV alone), and diffuse bilateral pneumonia attributable to CMV and superinfecting microorganisms (5 patients). These last patients had CMV-induced leukopenia of >1 week's duration at onset of superinfection, and all died. The 4 patients without leukopenia did not develop superinfection, and all survived. Two other renal transplant recipients died of infection during this period, both with CMV, leukopenia, and Listeria monocytogenes sepsis.
The major infectious disease importance of CMV appears to be its effects on the respiratory tract and systemic host defense in predisposing to fatal superinfection.'
I'm of the opinion AIDS is a collection of diseases caused by the general mistreatment of the body. In America where pneumocystis pneumonia and Kaposi's sarcoma are most commonly tied to AIDS, I believe it likely stemmed from a combination of poppers/other drugs, overuse of antibiotics, excessive drinking, poor sleep schedule, poor diet and possibly even experimental Hepatitis B vaccines from the gay health clinics. Once AZT was on the market for a bit, it seemed like more "AIDS deaths" were being caused by that than anything else.
No, I believe it is a diagnosis based on a symptom set and that the "disease" cannot be spread.
No I don’t believe it’s an STD. I once abused antibiotics and became “immunocomprised”. It’s a lifestyle and iatrogenic illness.
AIDS is not STD however The virus that leads to AIDS is an STD
I'm new to the AIDS issue, even though I'm 60 and lived through AIDS in the 80s and 90s, I never paid any attention to it since I was neither gay nor an IV drug user (or any drug user for that matter).
As for whether I think AIDS is an STD or not I tend to believe it to be more a result of lifestyle than sex, although sex could be a factor. Having many sexual partners, doing the drugs and whatever else they do can't be good for one's health. The sheer number of partners that I've read that some gay men have is just astounding to me, I can't fathom what drives a person to think they can do that without some repercussions. Which brings me to my next point that there may be a psychological aspect of homosexualality that can possibly cause a compromised immune system. I know homosexualality has been around for ages but, in my opinion, it's an unnatural lifestyle, a deeply personal and intimate one at that. I can't help but think that those living that life know deep inside that what they are doing isn't natural and that may cause some internal stress which could lead to immune system problems.
One thing that isn’t talked about a lot is that there are more heterosexual people than you might think that are *extremely* promiscuous and/or use a lot of party drugs.
This is demonstrated true by the regular increase of nearly every other sexually transmitted infection in general population.
Hi Rebecca, probably doesnt matter if homo or hetero ...but if leading life according to unbridled lower urges (coming from a more esoteric outlook on what we are here as humans for...i am currently exploring Steiner teachings) then you are asking for trouble?
I am tending to think that any lifestyle practice based on lower impulses, (eg for sex, intoxication, of addiction, of aggression etc) implicitly harmful (treating neither oneself , nor another, with love and respect, 'like a temple') is perhaps not the self acting...but prey to some other little, or larger, demonic dictate. But in the absence of a mindfulness, (and in a presence of over-spontaneity, even a recklessness? ), a self will run with them... them 'little devils' ?
Back in 1978 ... like now ... the deadly weapon was in the syringe ... gay men in big U.S. cities who got the experimental Hep B injections are the very same demographic group who (within a just few months after the shots!) started DROPPING DEAD Like flies ... but amazingly NOBODY but nobody -- except Dr. Alan Cantwell and perhaps a few others -- connected the dots!
I've heard a bit about this but would love to know more.
"I've heard a bit about this but would love to know more."
Here's a link to a May 2022 thread of approx 10 comments discussing this in somewhat greater detail:
https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/you-read-this-book-you-stay-in-wonderland/comment/6426589
Thanks. I just read through that thread. Fascinating. I've always wondered if there was something else going on beside the usual explanations, it's all been obsfucated by the 'HIV' theory. However, the Perth Group have been proven correct over time regarding the relationship between oxidation and AIDS and positivity. So this just presents itself as another puzzle piece.
Thanks for asking Rebecca. It would help if you could define for us what you mean by "AIDS". Do you mean immune deficiency, or immune dysfunction in general, or the often changing list of known diseases and conditions that the medical establishment has assigned to its "AIDS" umbrella? Either way, to me the answer would be No, this range of diseases/conditions would not constitute an STD. It is important, however, to better understand the root causes of immune deficiency and immune dysfunction, which clearly have nothing to do with the results of an HIV test. More likely frequent and repeated stressors to the body.
Peter Duesberg has asserted that it's not the amount of sex per se but the inordinate amount of recreational drugs taken to enhance sexual experiences along with constant use of antibiotics for the repeated actual STD's from having multiple partners, that contribute to breaking down the immune system.
But other stressors can also harm the immune system, as we saw with the extreme covid fear-mongering 3-1/2 years ago that surely produced such levels of anxiety and terror in some to contribute to their body breaking down. The covid jabs are also likely harmiful to immune function.
And there are surely other causes for less well publicized aspects of immune dysfunction (which you write about in your book The Real AIDS Epidemic) that need to be more fully explored.